Possible Nominations for Last Airbender

I say, go for the full sweep -- a nod in every category! Worst Picture, Director, Screenplay, all Acting, Remake/Sequel, etc.

I only want one: Worst Director for M. Night Shyamalan.

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD This movie is SO bad??:s The poster looks promising...

Really? Judging the quality of a movie based solely on the poster? Wow, the marketing department has you wrapped around their finger if you fall for that.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD This movie is SO bad??:s The poster looks promising... Really? Judging the quality of a movie based solely on the poster? Wow, the marketing department has you wrapped around their finger if you fall for that.

I didn't mean that I just wanted to say that the movie doesn't look awful like an Uwe Boll
movie that's all...

I probably wouldn't mind a Worst Supporting Actor nomination for Dev Patel, simply for the fact that he went from a great film that came out of nowhere to win eight Oscars (Slumdog Millionaire)... to an M. Night Shyamalan-helmed disaster!

It's not that bad. It's that Shyamalan's name is attached to it. Had it been anyone else, the film would have gotten a much better reception. I've seen worse adaptations, including The Golden Compass, Inkheart, Eragon, and The Seeker, just to name a few and surprise, surprise, those aren't under 10% in RT. I wonder why.

A common complaint for TLA is that it's joyless and dull. The movies I've mentioned before are also joyless and even more dull! I really don't get it at all. I'll admit it, TLA isn't up there with Harry Potter and LOTR, but at least the story interested me the whole way through, which is something I can't say about the other movies. Another complaint about the film is Noah Ringer's performance. So it's okay for Daniel Radcliffe to take three movies to better his performance but it's not okay for Ringer, on top of the fact that it is his first film? I call BS on that.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn No, it's that 1. Shyamalan doesn't know how to film action.

I think the action scenes are one of the few good things in the film. I love how it's all one take and not shaky like what Paul Haggis did with the Bourne films.

2. The dialog is nothing but explaining the entire backstory of the show's mythology.

But it's to be expected. Inception does the same thing. Yes, I just compared Inception to TLA. Inception takes a lot of its time to explain the rules of the dreams and explains them a whole second time and sometimes, the film ignores the rules established just for the convenience of the characters.

4. The movie is not loyal to the source material, example: most of the actors are either white or Indian, in the show, they are all Asian. In other words, it IS that bad, and it angered fans of the series.

The film contains almost every ethnicity known to man. It's diverse and every character in the tv show wasn't Asian.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn 2. Yes, "Inception" did, BUT they could SHOWED the rules as well as explaining them out loud. Show, not tell, something M. Night USED to know, but no longer does. And no, "Inception" didn't break at the rules, you die in the normal dream, you wake up. You die in the dream while under the drug, you go to limbo. You die in limbo, you wake up. You get a kick in a normal dream, you wake up. If you're in multi-level dreams, you need a kick to wake up from each dream. Where's the cheating?

They never said that when you die in limbo, you wake up. The film made it sound crucial that being in limbo is the worst thing that could ever happen and when Cobb finally get to limbo in the end of the film to take out Satio, it's as easy as pie.