AVATARD Vs. TRANSFORMERS 2

As I've said previously, the movie AVATAR reminds me of most is STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE (1979). Both have about 20 minutes of plot spread out over several extra hours of what were state-of-the-art special effects at the time of release and therefore have no entertainment value three decades after they are released.

That being said, the movie that AVATAR is most like in the past decade is TRANSFORMERS 2 (but only because DANCES WITH WOLVES and FERNGULLY were made in the early 90s). So, I decided to compare the two side by side in several categories to determine which was the better film. Join me, if you will, in examining two of the longest, most boring films of 2009.


As with my previous AVATARD blog, if you haven't seen AVATAR, don't read between the happy smurf and the bored smurf. Because, between the happy and the bored smurf lies the plot of AVATAR (Get it this time? Because between the a happy and bored Nick there was a viewing of Avatar. [Gee, I love my own shit]. There is only 1 instance of spoilers. So enjoy the rest all you smart people who skipped AVATAR!

CAST

TRANSFORMERS 2 : Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, John Tuturro, giant robots.

AVATAR : Sigourny Weaver, Uhura from STAR TREK (sort of), that general from THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS, that dude-from-TERMINATOR: SALVATION-who-Hollywood-keeps-trying-to-pass-off-as-a-star-but-I-don't-see-it, that gawky dude from DODGEBALL, smurfs.

Advantage: TRANSFORMERS 2. Sure, Megan Fox is one of the worst actors of all time (if not the worst), but nobody fucks with the beef (Shia). He's Spielberg's golden boy. He's got the good looks, the great arms (as my sister informs me), the charm, the comedic edge... he's the next Ben Affleck as far as action movies are concerned (I bet he'll fade just as fast). And John Tuturro is hilarious. All Avatar really has is Sigourney Weaver, and she is 20 years past "movie star" status.

SCRIPT

TRANSFORMERS 2: Megatron is back and he wants... something. Shia's going to college... yada, yada, yada... explosions. Giant plot holes ensue, dialog stinks, characters are straight from INDEPENDENCE DAY. Typical Michael Bay movie. Written by those two whiz kids who wrote STAR TREK (WTF? Best and worst blockbuster scripts of the year are by the same guys? [Explanation, one script was written before the strike, the other after. Yet both came out at the same time, just a year after it ended... peculiar.]).

AVATAR: Dances With Smurfs. No plot holes neccesarily, but important details are left out, dialog stinks, and characters are straight out of typical Sci Fi handbook. Feels like a Michael Bay movie. Written by James Cameron (who brought you TITANIC).

Advantage: AVATAR. You didn't actually think I would say AVATAR's script was worse than TRANSFORMERS 2 did you? Sure AVATAR's script sucked, but TRANSFORMERS 2 didn't even make sense!

RACISM

TRANSFORMERS 2: The two most racist CGI characters sense Jar Jar Binks. Two robots who speak like they are "gangsta," wear gold chains and have gold teeth, and can't read. Fail.

AVATAR: The most racist alien species since the Gungans (Jar Jar's people). Those blue aliens are obviously like an "African tribe" in all ways except their skin is blue, down to the casting (all the main smurfs were played by black actors). My friend Bobby explained it best in his AVATAR review.

Advantage: TRANSFORMERS 2. It doesn't get much more racist than two "black" futuristic robots who are machines far more advanced than humans, yet still cannot read. But, at least this racism made for amusing moments.

DIRECTOR

TRANSFORMERS 2 : Michael Bay (THE ROCK, BAD BOYS, THE ISLAND, ARMAGEDDON)

AVATAR: James Cameron (TERMINATOR 1 & 2, ALIENS, TITANIC)

Advantage: Tie. After these two three hour spectacles, I honestly can't tell the difference between the two.

SEX APPEAL

TRANSFORMERS 2: Two words: Megan Fox. Okay, three words: Megan Fucking Fox! Okay, many words (that's right, I was too lazy to count them): Megan Fucking Fox oiled up before every scene.

AVATAR: A sex scene between two smurfs? Then, later, a scene where a smurf caresses a human with her blue hands?
And Sigourney Weaver is the only human chick in the movie? What the fuck were they thinking?

Advantage: Megan Fox... er... TRANSFORMERS 2.

LENGTH

TRANSFORMERS 2: 150 minutes.

AVATAR: 162 minutes.

Advantage: God bless you, Michael Bay, for keeping your film under 162 minutes!

SPECIAL EFFECTS

TRANSFORMERS 2: State of the art special effects animate giant robots that look flawless.

AVATAR: State of the art special effects animate blue aliens that look soulless (like every CGI character before them), but also pretty flawless other than that. 3-D is pretty damn cool (though those glasses were not designed to be worn for 3 hours!).

Advantage: AVATAR, only because of the 3-D. Otherwise, both have state of the art special effects and anyone who claims one is "more fake" or "less fake" than the other is full of shit.

FINAL TALLY

TRANSFORMERS 2: 5

AVATAR: 3

(That's 5 points for Trannies 2 and 3 points for AVATAR, not TRANSFOMERS 25 and AVATAR 3. Both ideas terrify The Living Daylights out of me [shit son, there's another Bond reference mother fucker {can anyone say callback?}]).

So, Megan Fox... er... TRANSFORMERS 2 for the win.!

But, it is such a shitty movie, so going against the data, I'm gonna say AVATAR is the better movie. Script is so important to me and AVATAR squeaks by in that category because TRANSFORMERS 2 really has one of the worst scripts of all time.

Still, I hope to God I won't be seeing either, ever again.

Be seeing you.