Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

I don't like either of them really. I'd choose neither but I guess if I had to choose one I'd choose avatar because it's going to be more historically important. But I don't think either of them are very good.

Out of those two? 2012 but I hated both.
At least 2012 wasn't a rip-off of Pocahontas and the popular version of when European settlers came to the Americas and brutally slaughtered all those poor Indians the moment they say them despite the fact they actually made friends with them first.

2012 had real shit explode. Plus ships funded by rich people. Yay rich people~

The effects were good, but a movie is far more than effects. Effects only enhance a movie, they don't make it.
Best part about Avatar was Sigourney Weaver. But even she couldn't make this good for me.

I hated Avatar. It was cheesy and was basically Pocahontas.

If they made the humans less bastard like and more sympathetic then it would have been better. Instead of the Na'vi being all like "we're close to the earth, THEREFORE WE WIN" and the humans being all like "lol we just gonna kill you blue bastards for the hell of it and fuck with your land and kill it like we did our own".
It would have been better if the humans were portrayed as willing to do what it takes to survive and both sides clashing for survival. Also rather than screw one or the other over, it would have been better if in the ends, they reached a compromise.

But that's not human-hating enough!

At least 2012 was at least attempting to praise (more or less) human ingenuity and survival. Plus the ending was fucking hopeful for the human race rather than a downer for the human race like in Avatar. Humans get screwed in both, but 2012 had the decency to give them hope at the end. But in Avatar, screw the forgiving and loving nature of the Na'vi! No, just send the humans back to their fucked up world to let them die instead of attempting to help them in the slightest!

I didn't like Avatar at all because it was basically the evil white man against the natives - just like how people believe the Europeans meeting the Indians were like.

Basically it was saying all humans, esp. white ones, are greedy selfish bastards. Which for the most part is true, but, they said it in such a negative way rather than a more realistic way showing the both sides had their reason to fight for the sake of their own survival regardless of right or wrong.

Avatar was way too unrealistically environmentalist to me, portraying most of the humans as nothing more than sadistic militaristic assholes. Aside from the given few, of course.

I didn't feel for the characters as I believe them to be nothing more than cardboard cut-outs.
The princess (because I can't remember her name) came off as hateful and condescending even in her sweeter moments, to sum it up - preachy.
Mostly when dealing with an opposing view.
Also, she was a princess.daughter of the chief. How cliche. I cannot begin to describe my dislike for this aspect. A strong female character shouldn't be a [strong female] character but rather a [strong character], female.
As if a main character who is a princess should also be the strongest female warrior, ever.
A battle princess is one thing, but damn. Weakness make a strong character. She had no flaws shown as flaws but rather flaws that are shown in a positive light (ex: a girl who is sweet, nice, all around likable girl but she's also highly emotional, doesn't get all the facts, is conflicted on everything, shows off, blah blah - yet no one sees these as bad things).

It would have been better if she was shown to have actual weaknesses or wasn't a princess. It's too common, too cliche. Tired of seeing it. Also that would have tossed the Pocahontas argument out the window.

All in all, i dislike both but 2012 has less to complain about.

2012 was just awesome to watch
It's a loada rubbish, but.... The film itself is awesome
If 2012 were true, most of that'd've happened....
Them all abandoning us I mean :3

i will go to avatar