"Avatar" is just a rip-off of "Monster's Inc."

Stop looking at me like that.

No really, stop.

If you've gone to a cinema at all in the past year, you have seen the epic (and I mean epic in the sense of it being FREAKING LONG) CGI wet-dream that is "Avatar". Visually stunning, mechanically uncomfortable, and as ham-handed with the environmentalist propaganda as "Ferngully" but without Tim Curry, Robin Williams, or eighties-era hilarity.

Now, I'm going to make something very clear. I liked Avatar. I saw it in the theaters and thought it was very pretty. As I am a geek, I found the concept of hooking your brain up directly to a giant world-wide super computer very appealing. Besides, I like fantasy…and this had the flavor of every fantasy novel ever written…even if the mechanics of it were a bit shallow in comparison. (Think Eragon to Lord of the Rings).

Besides, I'm not a film snob. I love indie films and dark comedies, but I am just as capable of enjoying a bad film. In fact, I absolutely adore a hilariously terrible film. ("Xanadu" with Olivia Newton John is a particular favorite.) I find movies like "Wedding Crashers" and "Zoolander" just as satisfying as "Amelie" and "Synecdoche, New York" if in completely different ways. So the fact that everything James Cameron does is painfully mainstream and overly-marketed really didn't cut my enjoyment that much.

So yeah, I liked Avatar. Would I see it again? If there was nothing good on TV.

So why do I not worship the ground James Cameron walks on? It has to do with my first rule of Literature.

FIRST RULE OF LITERATURE
Any creative work should evoke an emotion, not force one.

So your friend wants to demonstrate to you, through film, that drowning puppies is wrong. You see two films. The first has a very righteous tone. You listen to people argue, vehemently, about the wrongness of drowning puppies. This is accompanied by BAD MEN drowning puppies anyway. The second film is generally happy. You are introduced to one or two very specific puppies. They have names and you are given a solid hour to get to know them and watch them be generally adorable. You grow to love them. At this point, during the climax, they are stuck in a river and are very close to drowning, and you are incredibly relieved that they are ok.

Which one worked better? The one where you are shown and told that puppy drowning is wrong. Or the one where you felt that it would be a terrible thing for a puppy to drown and made the connection on your own? Sure, after each film you probably felt very strong about your anti-puppy-drowning convictions. However, you likely leave the first thinking "Puppy Drowning is Bad because it's Bad." You leave the second thinking "I Love Puppies and Would Feel Awful if Something Happened To Them."

Avatar is definitely in camp #1.

"But Brie" I hear you say in my mind "This rant is all very well-and-good, but what does this have to do with Monster's Inc.?"

I'm so glad you asked, figments of my imagination. (And as this blog is brand new and has no followers as of my writing this...you really are fictional, dear reader.)

Allow me to restate my thesis: Avatar is just a cheap ripoff of Monster's Inc.

Yes. That Monster's Inc. The animated one. By Disney and Pixar. John Goodman, Billy Crystal etc.

No. It's not just because they feature a giant, blue protagonist.

It is because they are LITERALLY the same film plot-wise.

In case you are one of those sad people who don't watch children's films because you feel they are beneath you, allow me to explain the plot of "Monster's Inc."

There is a large corporation dedicated to obtaining a fuel source for the benefit of society. The protagonist works for this company and is in fact a key employee, singled out by the director of the corporation.

The fuel source is in the hand of a strange foreign people of a completely different species. Understanding of this foreign populace is very limited, but it is generally understood that they are DIFFERENT and SCARY. However, they are believed to be inferior, and are capable of being tricked out of their fuel source…especially since they don't really consider it a fuel source. Protagonist is charged with doing just this. However, in the course of performing his duties, he accidentally comes into contact with a girl from this foreign species. As time goes on he grows to understand the girl and have deep feelings for her. He becomes determined to protect her from what he's beginning to understand as the cruel and ignorant treatment of her species by his company. This culminates in an epic conflict with the director of his company. In the end, he stops the company and finds that through understanding and kind treatment of the other species, fuel can be obtained more easily and ethically.

Seriously, the only way this plot differs from Avatar is that in the end, instead of abandoning his own people, the protagonist manages to negotiate peaceful interaction between the two species and STILL get the damn fuel that his own people actually need. Which is a better ending anyway.

Those of you who have seen Monster's Inc. are now going through my synopsis and trying to reconcile it with what you remember of the movie. This is because it wasn't made to shove this moral down your throat. It's carefully hidden under the adorable story-telling and your concern for Boo. It concentrates on creating empathy with the main characters, not on The Message.

Please, tell me I'm wrong. I like telling people my opinion, I LOVE getting to argue it. Besides, I've been rolling this comparison around in my head for weeks and would love to iron out any holes in it if I can. If you see a weak point in this post, comment and let me know. The only thing more fun for an English major than literary analysis is literary discussion.

Also, as this is a new blog, please let me know what I can do to improve. Do I rant too much? Does my writing style annoy you? Do I annoy you? Too long? Too short? Any and all criticism welcome. Until next time, cheers!