>

yeah they look boring
The Avatar movies serve two purposes for James Cameron: world-building and technological boundary pushing.
World-building: James Cameron loves imagining the ecosystem of Pandora. All the different plants and animals that we may only see for a few seconds are each things that he has put a lot of thought into. It is hard to deny that, while the stories he has told in Pandora are not super exciting, the world itself has an impressive level of complexity.
Technological boundary pushing: The first Avatar film was basically the resurgence of 3D in movie theaters. It is the reason why every movie for the next 5 years was 3D. It was why people started buying 3D TVs. It could be argued that it’s the reason that the Nintendo 3DS was announced the very next year. Avatar took 3D from being some gimmick where things come out of the screen to a truly immersive movie-going experience.
The second film is all about the mechanics and challenges of making CG water look real and beautiful. Water has always been a hard spot in visual effects, but Weta patented a brand new technology for Avatar 2 to create “thin film interfaces” for areas where water is seen on the surface of textured materials. Another new technology was created for the process of filming motion capture underwater rather than putting actors on wires and trying to fake what moving underwater looks like.
While most viewers are not keen enough to know that all of these things are happening, our brains are very good at determining when things look fake. So, when it does look real, you notice even if you don’t realize that you notice.
Yes, the plot is a little lackluster, but that’s not why people love the movies. It is because they are visual masterpieces >

Best explanation I ever heard about Avatar was:
The explanation is in the name. The movie isn't called Avatar because of the avatars in the movie. The movie is called Avatar because it is there to provide a medium for you to experience the alien planet and its flaura and fauna. The movie is the avatar. It doesn't need a good story because the world is the entire purpose. >

There seem to be a lot of people who take something that's supposed to be descriptive and think it's prescriptive.  I notice this a lot on this incel forum I found because I was researching surgeons for jaw surgery.  They think a face has to have certain features or else it isn't attractive, so they end up thinking Timothy Chalamet, Henry Cavill, and Cillian Murphy are not attractive.
Anyway, the same personalities or thinking styles will think Avatar is bad because it lacks certain features that a movie "needs" in order to be good.  But those features are just things good movies tend to have, not things a good movie is required to have.
I fucking loved Avatar, the first one.  I only saw it once.  I haven't seen the new one.  I wasn't even all that excited for the first one, although I am a Cameron fan.  But I got super high, which is something I normally don't do, and like 5 minutes into the movie, I was like "holy shit, I'm looking at a real alien right now."  It totally brought an alien planet to life for me, and at that point, I simply did not give a fuck about how original the plot and characters were.  
But ultimately the movie wasn't about an alien planet, but the Earth.  It was about seeing the Earth as you would view an alien planet.  Because a lot of the creatures in Avatar aren't that alien, but based on sea life.  And it's like, why are we so excited about an alien planet but so complacent with the Earth.  An alien visiting Earth would be astounded by all the life and the diversity and yet there are plants and animals on Earth that most of us have never seen and we're not even curious to see them.  We spend our time posting on reddit instead.  Avatar was about the main character waking up to the beauty of Pandora and it was asking you to do the same for the Earth.  
It was just a glorious experience for me.  It made me feel alive, and so someone saying "Um ackthually it's just Dances with Smurfs in Space, just sounds dumb to me."  It's like being at a concert where everyone is super into the music and being like "Heh.  He just played the wrong note. Did anyone notice he was off key there?  This band sucks." >

Henry Cavill and Cilllian Murphy are attractive according to incels' models for attractiveness, so I'm a little confused. (Frankly I've never been able to make sense of these "prescriptive vs descriptive" expressions people-well, you and one Tiktoker are the only ones to use it, and he uses it constantly, assuming you aren't one in the same, which would be reasonable to assume given the rarity of the phrase. By the way this is maybe the only phrase I've struggled to convert to cold hard mathematical logic.)
But yes, everything else you've expressed seems obvious. It just means that statistically, Avatar likely has more of a niche appeal. 
I don't get how the movie can apparently have great world building when you only see brief snapshots of the worlds presented. Unless there's some Avatar book series I'm unaware of, I doubt that's even remotely possible. Especially if they prioritize visuals over story so strongly, as you and others here believe. >

I went in expecting a turn-your-brain-off, sci-fi action-adventure with wild CGI.
I got a turn-your-brain-off, sci-fi action-adventure with wild CGI.
Learn to temper those expectations, and understand not everyone is seeking the same thing when they go to watch a movie. >

Honestly I dont get the hate they get. Yes, they are very dumb, cliche films but they are visually impressive and all in all are entertaining popcorn flicks. Just average sci-fi action. Thats all. >

It's not Papyrus in the second one. They designed a new font called Toruk. >

whatever they did...IT WASN'T ENOUGH!!! (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ >

I KNOW WHAT YOU DID!!! >

They’re making more? They changed the artwork! They fixed it! >

Insert Generic Popular Reddit Opinion Here >

The hype I remember is that it was so beautiful that it made people depressed. Those people need to go outside and touch grass. While we don't have that world, our planet is far more beautiful.
I think avatar is actually a sign that we're over worked and many of us haven't played outside in years or even decades. Our owners don't value it so when we saw it on the screen it called to us.
That's my stupid theory anyways. >

I don’t either. Shit was wack. >

SAME >

I think people are mostly annoyed at how they made Aang look like a cancer patient. >

You are correct. The movies are completely overrated and just plain bad. People who want to say it's because "it's visually impressive" I'm sorry but I don't buy that. 95% of the general audience are not going to be able to tell the difference between the visual effects in Avatar and any other blockbuster film. They do not have trained eyes to notice the difference, nor do they even care to look closely. >

So bad that it made so much money!! >

The first one was a super lame/generic plot and seemed to exist only because "cOoL sPeCiAl EfFeCtS."
Don't understand why a second was made let alone why anyone would want to see it. >

Half the marvel movies have super lame/generic plot but cool special effects, but i dont see the same level of hate the avatar movies get. At least avatar has, although simple, beautiful themes. >

half the hate even started by Marvel fans when endgame couldn't bear avatar at total gross. >

Recent studies, despite contrary beliefs, show humans may have different opinions on certain things. Thank you for tuning in, until next time on Reddit breaking news! >

Me too, both movies are hella mid >


The subtitles were in papyrus font too and I just can’t abide by that.

Can't really argue with that. >

This is not an unpopular opinion.