1 - I want to fully reserve judgement on Avatar until the full series is done. Maybe this is building to something and we don't know it yet. To compare to the LotR films, if the source material was unknown what would we have thought about the first film? They killed off two of the best characters, wasted 30 minutes on some prologue stuff, what are these Hobbits supposed to represent, Frodo seems pretty pathetic for an action hero, and we never even get close to the Mordor place.
I mean... what?
I feel like there's a huge difference between a great film that doesn't have an ending because it's part of a series, and a garbage film that doesn't have an ending because it's part of a series. No complaint yet leveled against Avatar is that it doesn't have a satisfying conclusion to the entire concept.
2 - RE: The Hobbit - the Hobbit was a misfire because even though that book and the LotR trilogy are connected they really do not gel together al all - not on paper, not anywhere.
Well, no. That's not why it was a misfire. It was a terrible set of films. Independent of how well they gel with LotR. Taken as their own films entirely, ignoring LotR completely, they are both bad films and bad adaptations. I don't see much evidence at all that trying to make them more grown-up (i.e. more in line with LotR) is what makes them bad. Hell, the fan-edit manages to make them into a fairly decent film which is also relatively in line with LotR.
3b - Pretty much all entertainment makers and critics try to convince the world that they aren't just trying to entertain but make something meaningful - I think all of us want to feel what we are doing as a job or in volunteering has some positive meaning, and at times we overstate that. And many times a film can be both entertaining and meaningful, but there is nothing wrong with just entertainment.
We need to draw a distinction between 'meaningful' and 'has a story to care about.' You don't have to be making some deep, introspective character study on the human condition to make something meaningful. You just have to craft a story that feels like it matters. Half of the episodes of fucking Justice League Unlimited hit me harder and feel like they have more emotional depth than anything in Avatar. That's what I, personally, mean when I say that Avatar is just trash-spectacle without value. Even Cameron himself didn't give a shit about the story. It was all about how pretty he could make the screen. If people enjoy that, that's fine. But it's not high film-making and writing. It's just fireworks.
4 - Until I see the original edit of Star Wars before it was "saved" in the editing I will take that as hearsay - might be true, might not be - might be that no one fully got what he was going to be able to pull together once the special effects and so on were done.
I don't think that's entirely fair. It seems like most people that talk about Star Wars being 'saved' from Lucas are basing that on MANY interviews over the years, including those with Lucas himself. It's setting the goalpost on the surface of the sun to be like 'show me the original edit.' There isn't one. There's just the actual words of all the people involved. But I can't imagine the herculean effort it would be to distill decades of interviews and comments down to 'here's what we're talking about' if you don't already know.
THis is the "just play the game for 10hrs and then it becomes good" of movie arguments. Nah. It's not fun right now two instalments in. That's as good a chance as I'm giving anyone. If I watch any more it'll solely be ont he recommendation either of people whose taste I know is similar to mine, or on the recommendation of @Damien because if he watched one and liked it I know it must be a miraculous piece of filmmaking.
Ha!
But yes, this. I think there's also a misunderstanding here of what makes Avatar bad. Because it is not 'not enough stuff was explained to me.' Therefore, a really good ending that explains everything has zero impact on the original film. It wasn't bad because I, as a viewer, am confused.
