How Studio Execs Got Avatar Wrong 

In the case of both Avatars, the reason seems pretty obvious: for once, you see the beauty of those worlds, and that's important because the characters are gonna want to protect it later. But furthermore, you see the reward for the effort the characters did. Whenever we see characters fight and accomplish something, that concrete/physical beauty also becomes spiritual. You feel empathy for them. You feel them. You want the same things as them, now.

The concept of pacing is not about narrative or character development. It's not, "keep it moving, keep it snappy." Pacing is actually about whether or not we feel like we are heading towards the purpose of the movie. The flying scenes work because it's part of Jake becoming part of the tribe, earning his place, and falling in love with the world. If it didn't happen, we wouldn't have a chance to fall in love with Pandora(?), and as an audience we needed to fall in love with Pandora. That was the point of the movie, its purpose. Connection with and valuing of the world around us. If we didn't have the flying scene, or the hair connections, the story would just be about Jake finding a place, valuing the people who gave him a new life. It wouldn't be environmental, it wouldn't be about the world, and it wouldn't be about our world. It would actually just be Pocahontas is space. Pacing is not about only using scenes that fit character development and narrative development. It's about moving towards "THE BIG THING". If an action scene feels like there's no connection to the purpose of the film, it gets boring just as quickly as a slow scene that has no connection to the purpose of the film. The third Mummy movie and that problem. All action, no purpose.

If 2001 A Space Odyssey was never made with those extra long cuts where we just got to truly see what humanity realistically living in space looked like, I am sure thousands of people who were inspired to work in the space industry by it, never would have, and dozens of movies never would have tried to achieve similar heights for space realism and inspired thousands more.

Pacing is best understood in literature because it's easier to quantify. In a book, it's common for a few instances of real time to be stretched out to what feels like minutes or hours as the author dissects every sensation running through the very fiber of a character's being. But this doesn't feel like a waste in spite of how common it happens because this internal monologue is what you read books for. It's the one thing books can still do better than any other medium. Time is freely manipulated in literature by going into more or less detail. I can say, "Frodo traveled to Mordor" in four words, but that sentence describes a process that takes hours to unfold in the Peter Jackson movies and would have taken weeks of real time, with many detours and subplots and so on. This is often construed as telling as against showing but if you were to truly show everything and endless samsaric ocean of pointless details would emerge and the book would have more words in it that there are particles in the universe. So we don't describe actions in full -- we summarize. The Gospel of St. Mark jumps from Jesus' conception, sweeps past the nativity, to Jesus' baptism, his temptation in the desert, and to the Sermon on the mount in about ten chapters. Which, depending on how your bible is formatted, could be a handful of pages. So pacing is largely a matter of cropping the events down to what matters while still leaving enough space for the audience to move through the various emotional tensions in the plot. If it's too fast, there can be tonal dissonance. Too slow and it becomes tedious. But the point where it's just right is not consistent from case to case so saying you don't think a story is paced well may actually be equivalent with whether or not you like the movie outright because the things the story should linger on or ignore are based on what you personally consider to be important. Drama is staid to be life with the boring bits cut out. But how are we to define what is boring? So, as is rightly pointed out, pacing sounds technical so it can often be a pretext to disguise an opinion as an impartial critique, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it out of hand because pacing is about brevity and brevity is the soul of wit. So if the artistic merit of a film matters then pacing is quite close to the heart of it.

Narration, editing, and selection of One Two Three to use as a parallel is all superb. One of my favorite film channels on youtube!

Can't wait to re-watch this every 6 months for the rest of my life wherever I binge your entire channel

These are the best parts of both films, they’re also why my mom can’t stay awake during either film

I needed to double check when I saw uploader's name. Keep up the good work man

It's always a good day when there's a new NYSI to watch!

The James Cameron idea of 'I want to see it, so other people want too' is also what often goes wrong with movies. James Cameron seems to have a good grasp of what cinema could and should be. Plenty of directors make movies that just they want to see.

The king underwater scenes were my favorite parts of the second movie! I can’t imagine it without them

I thought I was hallucinating when getting the notification you uploaded

I wouldn't say that Leonard (Private Pyle) or the Drill Sergeant are the main characters, even in the first part of FMJ. Joker is still the main character in those scenes; we usually see the action from his point of view, and follow how he feels and reacts to the Drill Sergeant's treatment of Leonard.

You weave in the interviews SO masterfully. Always great additions with excellent context

Man I miss this channel. Glad you're still making these!

I agree with so much here! In IMAX 3D, those long scenes in both Avatar are simply amazing -- you fall into that world and feel like you are there. I also don't generally like Stanley Kubrick's pacing and valleys. I think that might explain how these long scenes are risky -- if the audience likes that scene, they will love the long drawn out scene but if the audience doesn't, they will be bored. I just don't 'feel' Kubricks pacing and way of story telling so when he does long scenes like in 2001, I'm bored. But Avatar is interesting because it works great in 3D but those long scenes on regular TV at home are just okay and kind of hurt the experience of a re-watch at home.

This essay feels scattered and long. The framing of the interview about the studio exec is great, and the reveal of the later part of that interview being “I want to see it and that means other people do too” works. But half of the video is spent talking about One Two Three, which is fast paced I suppose, but has little to do with the rest of the video: with what directors think audiences want to see, having musical qualities in its pacing, or what effects pacing has on its story telling. Honestly the section on diegetic music feels like it can be removed all together. The mention of the Kubrick stare is superfluous, and kills all the momentum of the arguments being made. To me, your conclusion is about how throwing away conventional rules of storytelling, or packing “meaning” into every single moment, can take away from a movie because audiences (and characters) need time to breathe and absorb information. So, the essay starts with execs claiming this scene doesn’t have narrative purpose. Then, citing Peaks and Valleys gives the viewer an example of what the conventional rules of pacing are. “Stories require slower moments so viewers can digest the fast ones.” What rules are Cameron breaking here? It’s a slower moment that lets the previous fast pace breathe, establishes character relationships, and sets up future set pieces. It’s a textbook example of the rule that is cited, and the only thing happening here is that the exec didn’t see it at the time. Kubrick is a good example of a popularly successful, famous director succeeding despite having more valleys than peaks, but the only reason for that given in this video is that he believed in the “I want to see it” rule of thumb. Overall, I feel like your main point in this essay is that directors like Cameron and Kubrick have good taste, and were successful enough to fight for their visions. That’s a statement I probably agree with, but I was hoping you would say what they are looking for in their work besides following their vision without regard for pacing. As it stands, the essay seems incomplete by not answering your introductory questions, and going off on too many tangents before reaching a conclusion where you just say that Cameron did a good job, just by getting lucky that what he wants also just randomly happens to be a blockbuster hit. All things considered, I genuinely enjoyed watching this video, and many of your other essays, and will continue to do so. Thanks for giving me something juicy to think about!

I've considered Pacing to be more about measuring how much something engages, excites or stimulates over time. Too much excitement for too long is exhausting. Too little stimulation for too long is boring. I suspect that the Studio Execs saw the Avatar flying scene in isolation, without the same understanding or investment in the characters or situation and consequently, became bored watching it go on for so long. Of course, once someone becomes fully immersed into the world of Avatar, they'll still cherish the time the film spends simply indulging in what could otherwise be considered 'pointless spectacle'. As for Stanley Kubrick films, I would argue that their slow or awkward pacing definitely makes it much more difficult for modern audiences to stay engaged. I remember watching the first 20 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey wondering why we're still watching these Monkeys take so long to get hyped about the Monolith and then do the icon match cut of mankind's first tool become an orbiting space station. Then again, it's a Kubrick Film.

The same day that you're having a bad day at work, you would also have a fascinating conversation with your Uber driver, you would stare at a bird trying to still some other bird's food, and you would go through your pain too. There is no dull or unnecessary moment in your day, it's just your day. The art of the cinema is to show all of this soup, the best it can.. and no executive should stand in front of achieving that vision.

One, Two, Three is one of my favorite movies. So happy you discussed it here!

Thank you for making this video

My go-to example of a movie that was ruined by pacing: Doctor Doolittle (2020). That was clearly decided by similar studio execs saying, “Why do we need this or that? Make it snappy.” And the entire movie is that and the audience never has time to enjoy a moment. My mind and heart several times was at the point of “oh, this is about to be moment”… and CUT to the next. When this happens too much early on I lose interest in the story and stop caring. It’s additionally sad to all the people who put in long hours to create their art just to have ruined by execs and then not appreciated by audiences.

during your opening statements, i really thought a comparison to the train ride sequence from spirited away was coming :D

Fantastic video, as always! Love your scripts!

Dunno, I saw it at the 4d with the water splashing and seat rumbling and scents, it was amazing

A lot of the time studio executives and even writers miss the most important part of cinema. A movie isn't just a piece of art or an exploration of the writer's/director's intellect. A movie is an experience that can, when done right, drastically change the viewer's life, even if only for the 90-or-so minutes they are watching such a movie. This is why I have always defended James Cameron and Avatar, and even George Lucas' prequel trilogy, when people have criticised it. When you learn to stop judging a movie for what it should be, and instead surrender to the experience of what it truly is then you start to view the movie, and by extension life as a whole, as something much more meaningful and beautiful than any rules or conventions could dictate.

another director that gets this , is miyazahi from studio ghibli, who has certain moments where he allows the viewer to just relax and calm down

‘Before you radiate, you must absorb’ - James Cameron

What film is the scene from that you use of the conductor at 8:40

James Cameron needs to make an Avatar tv show. It would allow him to go on these long world building tangents without throwing off the pacing of a movie

The way I imagined the fast pacing explained in this video is a racer slowing down and going in for a pitstop in order to refuel and change tires(in this case the slower scene to let viewers catch their breath and digest everything they just witnessed) before going back out into the fast lane(the next set of fast scenes).

Thanks for having our old Hero Horst Buchholz in this. 1-2-3.

Kubrick movies make a lot more sense if you watch with the understanding that he was a strong believer in 5 act structure. 2001 is a good example; Birth of Man sequence is weighted as an Act where other filmmakers would have it as a scene. So too with the sequence inside the monolith; it’s weighted as an Act. It’s valuable to think in terms of five acts over three; where it was the realm of arthouse, increasingly I’ve noticed three hour blockbusters like The Batman have five acts.

The thing is, pacing (and all the other boxes to check) are very useful tools, and a vast majority of writers and directors need to follow these general guidelines, because it's simply what works, what affects the audience and keeps them engaged. There are a few creative geniuses who can actively deviate from these general guidelines and do something unique, with its own purpose and meaning and emotional charge. But just saying that you should ignore the idea of pacing based on some ideal of total freedom from creative guidelines is kind of silly. It's standard because it works, and most people who would actively go against these guidelines would still just be doing it in intentional discourse with said guidelines, subverting expectations for the sake of subverting expectations, with a smug air of "Bet you didn't see that coming!"; deconstruction in all its sardonic glory. It takes a real genius to be able to go against all rules and all common sense. Very few artists are that kind of revolutionary genius, and often times those that try end up being embarrassing failures. There's nothing wrong with just being a skilled craftsman who makes tight, well-written, well-paced narratives and films.

Sick One Two Three reference. One of the craziest movies out there

Going into a video about Avater, leaving wanting to watch a fast Black and white Comedy!

There's a contrast between "kill your darlings" and "believe in your idea" here. Sometimes, when the story just doesn't work and you're up against a wall of lost progress, you need to consider removing something you initially really wanted from the story in order to get it on the right track. I think even a really good director can lose sight of what makes an entertaining film if they ONLY out exactly everything they want in a film without consideration for the story or how it's told. But, at the same time, they need to have faith in the narrative. Believe in it and that your audience will understand it. That's how you know what to lose and what to keep.

I hate how execs and people in the business are so married to formula. formula is what everyone expects and almost every successful movie breaks or subverts the formula somehow. You either break a formula to create something new or play into a formula - and the only reason to do that is to avoid risks and fix story problems that aren't working. The formula should act like a base or a starting off point rather than a bible that all stories must conform to. I feel like their refusal to change or take risks has lead to so many boring big budget movies in the last 20 years.

Another way to think about it, in music you want your song to have tension and release. I feel movies are similar.

The first movie is great. The second one is ok. Flying sequencse were great, swimming sequences were ok (i expected more from Cameron with that one)

I wish someone/ studio execs had reigned in Snyder with his stylistic shots in BvS that had no purpose

The biggest issue I have with the flying scene is that we spend all this time on it, and they say that the flying creature only bonds with one rider, and then 10 seconds later he ditches it for a fancier one.

"I want to see and, and so Now You See it." - aaaanddd thats a wrap on this channel! :D

Avatar execs never heard of French New Wave xD

After 14 minutes, I'm left screaming at the screen, "How to Train Your Dragon did it better!" The themes and character development that are barely touched upon in Avatar's first flight are explored through two similar scenes in HtTYD - the bond between the rider and dragon is more important and takes more than a few seconds of struggle to resolve, it has less generic dialogue and music, the threat is heightened, and there's a second flight scene that enhances the relationship with a boy and a girl. The pacing is arguably better because - instead of a light sampler of the entire film's settings and character relationships - it actually takes the time across two separate flights to allow the characters to develop and bond. I also think the cinematography is better. Avatar leaned so hard into the impressiveness of its own 3D CGI gimmick that it forgot to do anything interesting with it besides a pretty backdrop. Even watching Hiccup and Toothless on a phone screen still feels impactful.

The world itself is a character as well.

Pacing has nothing to do with speed… it’s more about flow. A tempo, think of it like drumming and time signatures. Moments are calmer and switch to something more intense. I personally agree with the execs and it’s more a case of Cameron’s hubris. I fast forward every time

Cameron should have said: - Shut up and let me do what I'm good at.

Long "useless" scenes wouldn't be on my list of nonsensical storytelling choices that execs should worry about when in comes to the Avatar franchise

I love what you're saying but man it sounds like your voice is constantly cracking. I couldn't finish the video

The difference is the flying is exciting, the under water scenes are boring.

Watching Avatar is just enjoying some nice wierdly high-budget spec-evo that get enterupted by story that you don't care about and characters that steal screen time.

This video has convinced me to watch 123 over Avatar 2.

so does tarantino have interest in directing an avatar movie?

I think pace is better measured on how quickly the audience gains interesting information as well as how interesting that information is. A world changing bit of information is perfect to kick of the descent of the movie into a conclusion. World building information should be over by the 60% mark of the movie. Etc,etc.

What really annoys me is that James Cameron made such a big pissy fit calling MCU films "Theme Park Rides" and then he goes and makes a film that truly is nothing but visuals. The only difference between Avatar and those AI created art pieces is that real humans created his CGI effects fest. The Terminator and Aliens are two of my all time favourite films and they were mostly done with practical effects and they still look amazing to this day.

Isn’t pacing more about getting from different plot points? How fast you get from cause to effect, yes-and, this therefore/because that. You said Fury Road is fast pace but I would almost call it slow, over the course of the movie we drive from left to right and then right to left with a few points along the way.

"Because I want to see it, now you see it" is not a very persuasive argument. Think back to the worst movie you ever saw. That director wanted you to see it.

Cameron just wanted to do the set pieces the story was an annoyance to him

When someone criticizes a film and they mention pacing, a red flag always goes up for me.

13:50 *_bruhh_*

Avatar 2 was my least favorite movie I saw in theatres last year

i feel so gaslighted every time somebody is trying to prove that Avatar is a good movie lmao

Just like he did in True Lies.

I thought you were dead. I even went to your funeral, man...

Honestly the execs were just wrong. As the video explains they act as payoff for the taming sequence. And it sets up future events. So it helps the story and grows thr characters. Just too subtly for thr execs

You could have said "Renaissance painting on Coke" instead of "on steroids", considering the subject of the movie ... ;-)

Both Avatars were too long in my opinion. Adding these essentially useless scenes made sitting through the whole thing especially tedious.

Avatar was 6 hours too long.

I can't for the life of me figure out what point this video is trying to make. if it's that scenes don't need to have a purpose, then why is most of the video explaining how these scenes work and thus *do* have a purpose? if it's bagging on the studio execs for not understanding the purpose of the scene then it's weird to me that you're hyping up cameron who as a *director* could not explain his vision. at least cameron can presumably read his own mind and see his vision, the execs had to take his word for it which again *cameron didn't have*. if it's about pacing then I don't think we can just say 'pacing is really hard to define' and then not actually define it? like you say, when people say a movie is badly paced they're really just saying that they didn't like it, equally, saying that the pacing is good is just saying that you did like it. without a set definition here there is no meaningful 'why' worth talking about. if it's about creative freedom and expression then we seem weirdly focused on talking about all these different scenes made by old white dudes rather than the systems that seem to disproportionately favor cis, straight, rich, white dudes to be able to make the same movie in different shades on repeat their entire lives. I'm not saying you didn't explain anything here, but I just don't think you've really made a coherent point or said anything overarchingly meaningful. definitely no 'now you see it' moment from this time 😕

I was so bored in Avatar 2

4:17

Avatar 2 was a shit movie, there was nothing the executives could've done to save it.

I find Avatar to be incredibly overrated. Too much in love with the admittedly great technology, not enough story. And what story is there, its a rehash of stories told before. Arguably told better.

*Laughs in Peter Jackson*

Shuddup studio execs!! let creativity flow!!

I loved the world building a lot, but the plot of avatar I think is boring as hell and done a thousand times already. The bad capitalism people are coming to destroy everything for the (oil) natural resource. The plot from the second movie also stayed in the 2009 action movie vibe. Bad guy coming for revenge and big man gotta protect muh family.

12:40 wait, so "cinema" is like a theme park ride now?

Oh, THAT Avatar...

This video is too fast paced.

Is this a parody video?

Fell asleep during the first movie in the cinema, tried to watch it again at home and was just extremely bored. Terrible movie, 3/10

Studios were probably right, since those movies are utterly awful

putting Cameron's and Kubrick's names in one sentence must some sort of a crime...

I gotta say, IN MY OPNION, both avatars suck. These scene especially. I guess i'm just a more story based person, but I couldn't really care less if avatar looked the way it did or like minecraft. Its the plot and dialogue that make the movie, and both avatars were just sooo boring. Some of the most basic plots ever. I'm not saying that the way something is shot doesn't matter, but I definitely didn't get the "pay off" talked about in the video. I watched them both in theaters, and both times I wanted to walk out or at least be able to go on my phone. I feel like at least an hour can be cut from avatar 2 and nothing of value would be lost.

I agree with your opinion about the flying/underwater flying sequences. But the rest of the story is just banal in both Avatars. It does seem that many people feel that way - Avatar has not had the cultural impact like, for example, first Matrix.

I could not watch it until the end, I started thinking about getting out of the cinema half way trough. Then I tried resisting the urge, but at the end it was stronger than me. Just such a waste of money and VFX and time.

The Avatar movies are the biggest case of style over substance, short of the Transformers and Fast and Furious franchises, in Hollywood history. So much money spent just on how to film it, and try to make total CGI shots, look like a realistic world. The plot is just the thinnest of a fantasy Sci fi, action movie. They add a couple things in the second movie, but nothing was a surprise, not one story beat wasn’t exactly what I was waiting to happen. I could’ve told anyone the rest of the movie, after the first 25 minutes or so. I knew Sigourney Weaver’s little blue girl would talk to the planet, without needing a Tree or any other sacred place. I knew Sully would lose a kid, etc. I even said out loud, in the theater, “There still hiding in the jungle? The humans are just going to nuke them, when they bring marines in this time.” Someone near us said, “if you’ve seen it already, please don’t spoil things.” I told her, “we haven’t seen this. I’m just guessing, based on the first movie, and what is happening so far.” I think Avatar and Avatar: tWoW, are the most expensive average movies ever made. Why one finds visually stunning is very subjective, but most find the visuals to be great in Avatar. Many find the visuals and action scenes, are enough to say it’s the best movie they’ve seen, even admitting to the oh so basic script, that’s been done thousands of times, on various levels.

Avatar 2 sucked

blah. the avatar movies are weightless spectacle. like ordering a meal you thought you wanted. it looks good, but it doesn't fill you up.

Avatar 2 was one of the most boring films i've ever watched. So maybe those execs had a point?

I despise this franchise.

Really; you’re bringing up Wilder, to compare Avatar’s pacing problems? Sorry, but it’s a small minority, under the age of 60, who would even sit through most Wilder movies, let alone get the jokes.

Avatar 2 was the most excruciatingly boring rubbish I've ever watched. I loved the first movie, but the second one was a dumpster fire of boring plot and slow pace. That's 3 hours I'll never be able to get back.

What fucking song is this 4:32 I'm losing my mind pls help