Yesterday I watched the live action adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender.
Live action remakes of anime (or anime inspired) shows has been a dodgy proposition over the years, with the 2010 attempt for this franchise being a stark example. I actually enjoy most of them, but historically I’m an outlier. (I should note that I’ve never seen the 2010 film.) They tend to be disliked by most audiences. I sometimes wonder if my take comes from typically only having watched the original relatively recently, and so not having the deep seated attachment many do to those originals, so changes to premises aren’t as disturbing. Maybe.
Similar to past shows, I only watched the original a couple of years ago. It takes place in a world where some people are capable of telekinetic powers, able to move and manipulate one of the four classic elements: air, fire, earth, or water. There are separate nations that form around each of the elements.
The Avatar is a special being who can manipulate all of the elements, and has other powers, and is usually seen as the person who protects and brings balance to the world. The Avatar is reincarnated each generation as a new person, usually cycling through as a citizen of each of the four nations. However, at the start of the story, the Avatar has been missing for a century. And during that time, the Fire Nation has taken the opportunity to engage in a war of conquest against the other nations.
The good news for this particular adaptation, is it seems to be getting relatively good reviews, particularly from audiences. I think much of it is that it sticks pretty closely with the original story. It does front load some of the worldbuilding where the original took its time unfolding the backstory. And it is a little grittier, a bit more PG rated compared to the original’s more G rated and kid friendly orientation. In particular, it’s more explicit about how people die when attacked by Fire Nation forces.
I have seen some negative dings in reviews about this additional grittiness. One thought the creators of the show were too influenced by Game of Thrones. After watching it, I don’t find that comparison fair. The show remains far from the stark outlook in GoT. And I think it’s still mostly kid friendly, although maybe for older kids than the original.
One ding I do kind of agree with is the abbreviation of the storylines. The first season seems to roughly map with the first season of the original. But with only eight episodes, a number of plot lines feel compressed. To some degree, that’s inevitable with the change in form. But it does make some of the character arcs feel less earned. And it feels like much of the original’s social commentary gets crowded out.
Although the shorter plot does feel a bit tighter and more integrated than the original. And it seems like we get a lot more early exposure to the Fire Lord in this version. It’s probably more a result of balancing actor time, but it seems like we’re going to know him a lot better by the time we get to the climax of the series.
So, overall, I enjoyed and recommend it. It’s not perfect, but it has excellent production values, and visually works very well.
Have you seen it? If so, what did you think? Any other shows you’re watching right now worth checking out?
SelfAwarePatterns 
I just started the eighth and last episode last night. It is all very well done (and I am a fan of both anime and adapted anime). The only critique I have is the “one damned thing after another” structures. Our hero is distracted from his main task, then distracted from that task and then distracted from that task and then magically he is brough back on the trail of his first task. As if his primary task were monumental enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, in the original it felt more like a long journey with all the adventures mostly just stuff they run into along the way. But I think the abbreviated timeline forced them to integrate more, leading to the subplots within subplots thing. My main beef is it makes the world feel smaller than the anime version, less rich.
LikeLike
I really enjoyed it on the whole. It hit me in the feels in all the right spots, although I wonder if that’s partly my emotions from the original series doing the heavy lifting. I feel like that’s kind of cheating, and it allowed them to fast forward some developments that I think should have been slower – particularly Zuko and Iroh not having enough time as baddies.
I also didn’t like how everyone was putting so much pressure on Aang the whole time. It’s a reasonable sentiment, but they were all saying the same thing – “the Avatar is responsible for the world, you let us down, you can’t have friends”.
It also bugs me that Katara didn’t get taught by a master, and seemingly didn’t need to be taught. I think it cheapens it. The master-student relationship was an important part of ATLA, and shouldn’t have been cut out here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s always a problem with a remake / adaptation like this. How much do you assume the audience knows about the old version? And do you look to just recreate the form of the old one, or do something new that generates similar feelings to the original? The first can never aspire to being anything but a flashy copy. The second could achieve greatness, where we all say it captured the “spirit” of the original, or fail miserably.
I know what you mean about the past Avatars all telling Aang that. It seems clearly done for dramatic tension, but at the cost of making them all look like jerks. And if the show doesn’t ultimately show them to be right, like idiots.
I couldn’t remember the details of Katara’s arc in the original show. I remember she had a hard time learning, but I couldn’t recall the steps. But I know what you mean. The abbreviated timeline made her and Zuko’s arc feel a lot less earned.
LikeLike
I am interested that you enjoy something like this. There are, it seems to me, different aspects to your personality. I suppose that goes for most of us. But here there are so clearly mythical and “magical” aspects to this drama which in other modes you would probably be inclined to dismiss. But then there is much mysticism in Banks, let’s face it. Which is probably what attracts me so much to his writing. Even a hardened physicalist such as yourself is clearly seeking some meaning and is not entirely prepared to accept that it is all just atoms and force fields.
I recognise of courses that Avatar is simply entertainment and perhaps you view it as such with no deeper meaning ascribed to it.
Forgive me if I pry!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No worries. Who can say what’s going on unconsciously, but I generally watch these much as a Christian might watch movies about Hercules, the Trojan War, Aladdin, Beowulf, or any other mythological figure. One of my favorite movies is The Ten Commandments, a movie even many true believers dislike for all its inaccuracies, again now watched in the sense of mythology. There’s also an element of professional storytelling interest, to pick up possible techniques.
But I think you’re right that a lot of science fiction is filled with traditional mythological and fantasy elements, just with the trappings of science and technology around them.
I will say that one thing I do actively dislike about Avatar is the idea of a chosen and anointed one, and that the rest of the world can’t succeed without them. I strongly dislike that message.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I would loathe that also. Simpering nonsense. Although I have to say I did find Netflix’s Messiah quite captivating. Of course the idea of a saviour is pie in the sky but you can’t help thinking it would be nice if Gandalf turned up with his magic wand and made this awful world “alright”. I’m sure Gandalf would deal with Putin and the Arab Israeli conflict.
But yes in the same vane I watch gangster movies even though violence and drugs are not at all my sort of thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gandalf is an interesting example. It’s not clear unless you’re really into Tolkien’s mythology, but he’s actually a divine being, albeit a minor one, a literal deus ex machina. Definitely a good guy to have on your team.
Have you ever read or watched Watchmen? It explores what the world might look like if superheroes existed and got involved in politics and wars. 
On gangster movies, I have to be in the right mood to watch those, but I know what you mean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not watched Watchmen. And re Gandalf it’s interesting to note just how many “gods” and “goddesses” there actually are in LOTR. Tom Bombadill certainly counts, and then there is Galadriel. And I seem to recall some cove just outside Mirkwood in the Hobbit who was certainly most of the way there. Whether in Sci-fi, Fantasy, traditional fairy stories or even in conventional adventures it’s interesting to note humanity’s craving for beneficent god’s and superpowers. Hardly surprising in our brutal and uncaring universe.
Has it always been thus? I’m not so sure. Difficult to take much comfort from the grim Yahweh I would have thought. And then all those awful Norse and Roman and Greek gods. Not very benign or pleasant people?
Nonetheless it is difficult to exist as a human and not wish for a more benign world. And that is certainly reflected in so much of our literature and culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tolkien’s divine beings are kind of a mix of pagan and Christian theology. His divine beings all existed before the beginning of the world, although they chose to enter it at the beginning and remain for the duration (covered by The Silmarillion). So of the Hobbit and LotR characters, that includes Gandalf, Radagast, Sauron, Saruman, and the balrog. It probably also includes Tom Bombadill, although Tolkien keeps him mysterious. Galadriel and Elrond are actually just long lived elf lords who’ve had a lot of experience with the Valar and Maiar. And I don’t know what Beorn was,.
Of course, elves, dwarves, and many of the other creatures in Tolkien’s world are based on medieval fairies and sprites, which themselves evolved from low level pagan deities. Pagan religions didn’t have the wide gulf between humanity and God and the angels. Every tree, river, and town had its own essences, to be appeased. It was only the high gods that were remote and distant.
Pagan gods were definitely not moral exemplars. That used to puzzle me, before I realized that they were personifications of natural forces (thunder, sky, ocean, etc) which for ancient people seemed dangerous and capricious. Some ancient religions had a moral aspect (such as the ma’at of Egyptian religion), but in most cases it seems to have been a relatively late Axial Age addition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It might interest you to know that there is still a very active Tolkien society at my old College – Christ Church , Oxford. A relative of mine is a don at Christ Church and used to run it. I have owned a copy of the Silmarillion for many years but fear I never had the interest in the “back story”. Very good point about the personification of natural forces. I must look up the ma’at – Egypt has always been a gap in my knowledge. Paganism is so much more interesting than dull old Christianity and of course their are wonderful nature worship cultures in the East. I lived out in Japan and Hong Kong for a few years and the temples and their monks were joyous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is interesting, on the Tolkien society. Since it’s in Oxford, I have to wonder if it ever had any interaction with Tolkien himself back in the day. Or does it go back that far?
I can’t claim any authority on Egypt myself. I occasionally think about doing a deeper dive. I’ve always been struck by the fact that their civilization was already ancient by the time the Greeks and Romans came along. I saw a show on Youtube recently talking about the “first empire” of Sargon of Akkad. But his empire only seems first if we don’t consider the unification of Egypt to be the first empire.
There are some local churches where I live that manage to make their services fun, so not all of Christianity is dour. Or at least they look fun from the outside. You just have to buy the theology (or at least pretend to). I don’t have much experience with other religions. I know the ancient rituals often included orgies, although they also often included animal or human sacrifices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mostly enjoyed it. I did not like how much they front loaded the worldbuilding. Seeing that made me appreciate better how well they handled worldbuilding on the original show. We got to know about the characters first. We got to care about them. And then, once we cared about these people, we started to learn what sort of world they lived in.
But otherwise, I enjoyed it. The stuff with Iroh and Zuko hit me in the feels the way it should. The guy playing Sokka absolutely nailed it. Had me laughing out loud multiple times. Aang and Katara were pretty good, too. The show isn’t perfect, but it did enough stuff right that I’m happy, and I’m excited to see more.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yeah, I wasn’t wild about the frontloading. Part of me wondered if they thought everyone watching already knew the backstory and so there’d be interest in seeing it played out. Or it could just be American TV producers not trusting the audiences to be patient and work it out. To be fair, they were probably under a lot more pressure than the originals, and had to be aware of Netflix’s hair trigger cancellation tendencies.
Agreed on being excited to see more.
LikeLiked by 2 people