Comments on: Deconstructing Avatar: Act II (The First Half Up to the Mid-Point)

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:53:37 +0000

I don’t know if I agree with every plot point you mention, Larry, but I agree with most of them. And you are absolutely right, the story brilliantly follows the three-act story arc structure all the way from the beginning to the end. And don’t say that the story is bad. The story is just fine (and so is the term “unobtanium”). And just because a story is not completely original does not automatically mean that it’s bad, and the story for Avatar is actually quite good.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:24:09 +0000

One good point (pun intended) after another. Thanks to Larry and commenters. Two side bits: 1) If you didn’t read David Brooks’ piece, “The Messiah Complex,” in the NY Times, look it up. He points (there’s that word again) out that Avatar is part of the formula tradition in which a white man saves the noble natives. I’m not a Brooks fan, but this one is good, and even kind of funny.
2) Larry, please do a brief deconstruct of the main points in “October Sky.” I think the first plot point comes when the kid retrieves his rocket-making materials from the garbage, his first real rebellion (about 22 minutes in). The second plot point is when he’s committed to the Science Fair(?) Is the main plot the father-son story with redemption for both, or is it a subplot to the follow-the-dream story? I love it that the writer did this with the true-life story of Homer Hickam.

By: Jeannie Ruesch

Jeannie Ruesch — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:32:32 +0000

Wow, so unobtainium wasn’t just your clever way of making fun? Yikes…that’s really a word used in the story? LOL

Loving the series so far, even though I haven’t seen the movie, it is illustrating the points of story structure perfectly.

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:42:14 +0000

@Robert — “flinched” is the prefect word. Me too. I also flinched a few other times, especially at Jake’s dialogue while in Avatar mode. Like when he was squaring off with the charging animals, and later, when confronting Tsu-tay around the campfire. He sounded like a punk-ass (a word he actually uses) city kid trying to imitate a punk-ass street kid as a poseur in a psuedo-street fight, which clearly Cameron has never been in or near. It was imitatioin intimidation. For those who aren’t caring for the movie (a very scarce minority), these little weak touches are part of the reason.

Just goes to show, we can structure a story perfectly, but if we don’t put a great coat of creative skin over that skeleton, the story won’t be as well received as it deserves.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:53:17 +0000

I actually was pleasantly surprised by the story – however, I flinched when I heard the character say unobtainium … Cameron, in my opinion, should have replaced the word with diamond. Jason, your comment gives me the impression that you’re an academic.

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:31:41 +0000

@Monica — you could be right, this isn’t an exact science as we look in from the outside. But it is an exact science when we’re writing it, and that’s the point. Sometimes two scenes that achieve the very same thing can sit right next to each other, and it’s fair to say that “together” they comprise the pinch of the milestone. Both of these scenes fulfill the criteria for a pinch point — I chose the one I did because of it’s timing, it was right on the 37th percentiile of running time.

It’s great that you noticed. The benefit of deconstruction isn’t when we’re right, it’s when we understand. And you obviously do — good on you! Thanks for commenting. L.

By: Monica

Monica — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:51:35 +0000

This is great, Larry! Maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised at this movie’s popularity, if it sticks so well to the proper structure.

I was a little surprised at the mid-point (meaning, I got a little lesson there). I always think it has to be dramatic, a plot twist the reader/audience can feel. This scene was major, but we knew it was coming too. The key is it was major for *Jake*, and it shifted the context of *Jake’s* world. An important distinction.

I’m a little befuddled by the Pinch Point, though. If the pinch point is supposed to remind us of the stakes and “the primary antagonistic element,” then why is it the point when Grace moves them to the mountain lab and not perhaps the previous scene where we are with that antagonist and perceive the intentions to shut Grace down? I guess I’m interpreting ‘primary antagonistic element’ to mean the reminder involves that antagonist. A little clarification on that would be great.

Looking forward to Part 3. Thanks!

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:58:44 +0000

@Jason — yeah, I about gagged when I heard “unobtainium” come out of the character’s mouth. Let me clarify — I only said the story was a clinic on structure. Never said it was a good story, per se, or everybody’s cup of tea.

You actually open the door to making a good point here: even the most solid story structure does not a good story make. It’s a point I pound on continually here — good isn’t good enough. When it comes to story, covering the bases, putting everything in the right spot, may not be enough. It’s art, and there’s no real forumla for that. Thanks for commenting. L.

By: Jason Parmele

Jason Parmele — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:14:17 +0000

Avatar is everything wrong with a good story. The special effects? Great. The creative story? Nonexistent. C’mon “unobtainium”, really? How clever. Kill me.

By: Luisa Perkins

Luisa Perkins — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:09:24 +0000

Excellent. I’m with you so far.

I’ve seen the film in 2D and 3D; now, this Friday, I’ll be seeing it in IMAX 3D. But all that won’t keep me from analyzing the story structure yet again. I learn something new every time.