Avatar vs. Spiderman: Sacrificing a Premise

Sequels have problems. Just from a storytelling point of view. A good story is concluded, so how do sequels undo the threads of the previous, without disregarding the value of the original? How do you create a new story with the same characters, themes, and overall idea without completely upending the world you have established?

Most movies are not planned to have sequels. They tend to just come along when their original is financially successful. TV shows have a similar problem, where just the first season is planned and then storytelling elements get shoehorned in from then on to create some kind of arc. This is always why I have been a huge fan of the first 5 seasons of Supernatural, a surprisingly concise 5 season storytelling arc was set up from the go. Leading to things coming together and wrapping up really conclusively by the end of it all. It seems only shows based on books and comics ever have more than the first season planned. It is almost always noticeable how much forcing in the story has to take place to make things work for most shows. This is a direct result of the lack of full storytelling plans, which hinder the storytelling quality.

It is hard to tell a story that is the sequel to one that is wrapped up. The movie medium in particular is a culprit in creating very weak sequels. This does stem from a lack of planned follow-ups, but also because of just how short a story you have to tell in a movie is. You do not have the same time that you do in TV shows or Books to build up other elements and make them all work together.

Detractions aside, there is a point I want to get to, and it has to do with probably the two most recently extremely financially successful blockbusters Spiderman: No Way Home and Avatar 2: The Way of Water (sorry Dune).

Spoiler Warning for Avatar 2: The Way of Water and Spiderman: No Way Home

Spiderman had a planned-out trilogy, however, the second the executives caught wind of the possibility that Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire were willing to return, they RAN with it. Tossed all plans of the loose adaptation of 'The Last Hunt' and committed to a multiversal epic.

Avatar had seemingly no planned sequel but returned to the world anyway. Not a franchise I was interested in seeing come back, but not one I'm surprised to see either. I was excited to get a level of visual extravagance that I have not experienced since the original. I am a huge sucker for underwater visuals, so from the beginning, I knew this would be at least something that would keep me engaged, even if I had very little faith in its storytelling abilities.

Neither of these movies were planned in the context of their overall stories. Both were forced into a world where they were not planned out. Yet, Spiderman found a way to make the pinnacle of all nostalgic movies and Avatar has not only made huge noise at the box office but also with critic's reviews. They both, in my opinion, told stories that were captivating.

To be clear, I do not mean that either one of these movies from a pure storytelling point of view were incredible. I think they both have very interesting facets to them and alongside their other strengths, create a piece of entertainment that is valuable. Both of them benefit from benefits outside just their storytelling. Spiderman has the advantage of harnessing the nostalgia of the previous Spidermen, while Avatar is a visual spectacle. Yet, they utilized these strengths and found ways to make them work at a high level in their stories.

Spiderman made so many complicated elements work, and even with a huge cast of characters, seems to give at least most of them, satisfying arcs and stories. The story is a complicated juggling act of a variety of characters, and yet they handle it masterfully. I do not believe this story would hold the same value without the nostalgia involved, but it is the same nostalgia that makes telling a story like this so sensitive and complicated. Avatar's storytelling strength lies in its world, its environment, and how subtly it creates fascinating ideas. The world brings you in, and even if the plot elements overall do not keep up to the strength of the world, alongside its incredible visuals, it all just seems to come together so well.

These movies, since unplanned, had to take a world that was effectively 'complete' and push it in a direction that could be considered unnatural. They had to uproot established facts and lead their world toward predetermined ideas. How to get Tom Holland's Spiderman to the other two Spidermen? How to create a story that takes the environmental originality of the first Avatar while keeping the same core group of characters that the audience is already familiar with?

In their need to tell specific stories which did not fit in their original plans these stories sacrificed a very important storytelling aspect to get there.

The premise.

The first hour of both these movies are honestly, awful. The premises are flimsy at best, shoehorned to get to a point. They are low effort and lead to some of the worst dialogue I have ever experienced, especially in the first hour of the Avatar movie. I genuinely would be set into fits of laughter at the disbelief that certain pieces of conversation made it even past a first read.

Not that the Spiderman movie is much better, the premise of how the whole movie begins is just so incredibly weak that to me it almost seems that the whole conflict of the movie could have been avoided with some basic common sense and simple conversation. Not a great indicator of a strong story.

But, these movies tell the stories they want to tell and while the premise is sacrificed, the stories they both tell are actually quite impressive. I have already spoken about my enjoyment of Spiderman: No Way Home in my Top Movies of 2021 the premise still takes away from the quality of the story for me, as characters acting nonsensical to make plot points work has never been a storytelling device that has been satisfying.

However, I do understand that the Spiderman movie already runs 2 and a half hours long. Creating a well-constructed bridge between where they were and where they wanted to be is difficult when you have a whole complicated plot to get to. The premise is sacrificed to create the movie people actually want to see.

Avatar 2 creates a more cohesive run-in to its actual plot from the original movie. However, the strength of Avatar has never been its dialogue. Yet, to get from Point A to Point B requires so much exposition that the dialogue all of a sudden becomes a major focus, where it never should have been. The dialogue for the whole of Avatar 2 is not good, from the overuse of 'bro' to some of the most cringe-worthy emotional conversations to Sully's general (honestly boring) over-explanation of events. In trying to make the bridge, the movie does not focus on what it is incredible at. From great character dynamics, world-building, environmental storytelling, and emphasizing incredible special effects. The premise is forced to become something that Avatar never should have been.

This leads me back to the old misnomer that the 2nd movie (or a book) of a trilogy is always the worst. The second movie usually forms a bridge between the plot of the first to the plot of the third and is effectively sacrificed to create an effective plot for the third. Yet, it seems modern movie storytelling is moving away from this idea. Instead, they choose to just spend a non-sensical hour bridging the first movie to the second, sacrificing the premise to create the story they want to tell.

Both of these movies are successful, both commercially and critically. So to say that their sacrifice of the premise was a triumph would be an understatement. It is frustrating to sit through an hour of low-effort storytelling, but I do understand. The alternative to it does not seem better to me, anyway.

Moving forward, I am glad scripts are prioritizing almost an independent new story over just bridging two ideas and forcing too much loyalty to the original. However, I do hope they put more effort into making even that forced premise make more sense and attempt to integrate their premise with the way they are comfortable telling stories.

While both these movies have starts that are bad for very different storytelling reasons, it seems the causes of those shortfalls are the same. The restrictions of the storytelling medium force them to adapt, and in that adaptation, they choose to reduce the quality of the premise, so that the effects of the restriction are not felt throughout the movie. While this is an action that I support for the results it has brought us, I do hope that moving forward, storytellers can grow by finding better methods to reach the same end.