James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)

[trevanian]

Well, I finally broke down and watched Avatar (in 3-D). I went in with low expectations because I've been seriously put off by the super hype this movie has been getting since it was first announced.

Simply put, Avatar is Fern Gully meets Dances with Wolves with a heavy dose of coincidences, contrivances, stereotypes, and predictables, all covered in James Cameron jerk-off special effects. Complete with telling, not showing scriptwriting. A pity because it was visually beautiful, had a few interesting concepts, and a solid cast, but the writing and execution were horrible.

Yet the whole world gobbled it up because they are absolute idiots.

The storytelling was no worse than the massive plot contrivances in the new Star Trek movie, and yet I don't consider myself an idiot for liking that film, either.

More good reason for me to give AVATAR a miss, thanks!

 

[Agenda]

Yet the whole world gobbled it up because they are absolute idiots.

The storytelling was no worse than the massive plot contrivances in the new Star Trek movie, and yet I don't consider myself an idiot for liking that film, either.

More good reason for me to give AVATAR a miss, thanks!

You might regret it. It's an experience.

 

[Harvey]

On that inflation page, I really like this bit;

"For example, Snow White has made $118,328,683 of its unadjusted $184,925,486 total since 1983."

It's true, Disney has made a lot of money with theatrical re-releases. And they're still doing it--weren't Toy Story and Toy Story 2 out again just recently?

I'm not sure how unadjusted grosses are any more meaningful than adjusted grosses, though. They tend to miss the nuances of rising ticket prices, production budgets, advertising budgets, number of screens upon release, worldwide grosses, worldwide and domestic population at the time of release, etc. They make a nice line for television advertising weeks-deep into a theatrical release, or upon the debut of a film on home video, but other than that...?

 

[T'Baio]

Remember when people were saying on its opening that it could never make $500 million? Now it's "$2 billion is meaningless."

 

[Harvey]

Not meaningless, no, but have some perspective. On the other hand, Avatar is making a hell of a lot of money (and, importantly, has been able to keep audiences coming back each weekend). People who were claiming it couldn't surpass 500 millions were clearly wrong.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Simply put, Avatar is Fern Gully meets Dances with Wolves with a heavy dose of coincidences, contrivances, stereotypes, and predictables, all covered in James Cameron jerk-off special effects. Complete with telling, not showing scriptwriting. A pity because it was visually beautiful, had a few interesting concepts, and a solid cast, but the writing and execution were horrible.

*Emphasis mine.

Huh? I don't get the hate for James Cameron sometimes, with all due respect. I understand you didn't like Avatar as much as others but what exactly constitutes as "jerk-off special effects"? I'm a little confused. Does jerk-off equate to underdeveloped or underutilized special effects or an overabundance of special effects? Or just James Cameron sitting around in a computer graphics bay jerking off while telling the technician to "add more"...

I thought the special effects were the highlight of Avatar. They were incredibly photorealistic and it gave the proceedings a heightened sense of reality. The attention to detail was impeccable and it was a really immersive moviegoing experience. I had plenty of story qualms (your comparisons to Fern Gully and Dances With Wolves are adept) but I thought the special effects were really extraordinary.

I especially admired the way Cameron staged them, too. Unlike a lot of other directors who handle special effects-laden blockbusters (like, say, Michael Bay for example) the visuals were crystal clear and the imagery was well-cut and well-presented. I had a firm grasp as to what was happening. Cameron always had a really good grip on how to geographically and visually stage an action sequence, for example, and he once again proves that in Avatar.

So, I'm just confused. What was Cameron jerking off with the special effects? Or, more so, how?

 

[Kegg]

Avatar is making a hell of a lot of money

Honestly this is the only detail that really matters. Inflated, uninflated, adjusted, redacted; Avatar is a movie that made a lot of cash. Evidentally, it's a movie that people wanted to see and could be safely considered a smash hit. Whether or not we should consider Gone With the Wind the bigger smash hit is interesting but rather literally academic. (If memory serves, more actual people went to see Gone With the Wind, even when the population of the US was significantly lower, so I'd be inclined to say even taking into account TV and the home market that it was probably the bigger hit... but also honestly a rather trite, dull film.)

So, I'm just confused. What was Cameron jerking off with the special effects? Or, more so, how?

I guess there are people who dislike the fact the film is driven by its SFX first and foremost? I don't know.

Personally, best part of the movie and exactly the quality that made me see it twice.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I guess there are people who dislike the fact the film is driven by its SFX first and foremost? I don't know.

Many films are driven by something. You can argue that The Dark Knight was driven by the late Heath Ledger's extraordinary performance. Titanic was driven by the love story between Leonardo DiCaprio & Kate Winslet. Every big movie is driven by something that audiences want to see and be a part of. Clearly audiences wanted to be a part of the special effects extravaganza that was Avatar. I see no problems with that.

 

[D Man]

I've seen it twice now, first in normal-size 3D then in IMAX 3D. I plan to go at least one more time, if not more. Something about this film has completely drawn me in. Blablabla the story is contrived...eh, I don't care. It's a wonderful movie which I absolutely loved. I'm also not interested in the arguments over which movie is really the most successful of all time...if you liked the film, you liked the film. If you didn't, you won't change people's minds by talking about Gone with the Wind.

 

[Harvey]

Avatar is making a hell of a lot of money

Honestly this is the only detail that really matters. Inflated, uninflated, adjusted, redacted; Avatar is a movie that made a lot of cash. Evidentally, it's a movie that people wanted to see and could be safely considered a smash hit. Whether or not we should consider Gone With the Wind the bigger smash hit is interesting but rather literally academic. (If memory serves, more actual people went to see Gone With the Wind, even when the population of the US was significantly lower, so I'd be inclined to say even taking into account TV and the home market that it was probably the bigger hit... but also honestly a rather trite, dull film.)

You're right in the fact that Gone with the Wind sold more tickets. You're also right that this was both in the face of a complete absence of home video and television, as well as a much smaller population.

But, then again, I hate that film. Being dull and trite are the least of its problems. I'd much rather see Avatar again than Gone with the Wind.

 

[Kegg]

Titanic was also driven by effects to a large extent. Let's not forget that. It was a romantic melodrama, sure, but it was also a huge SFX film.

But, then again, I hate that film. Being dull and trite are the least of its problems. I'd much rather see Avatar again than Gone with the Wind.

Honestly I've only seen it through once and that was over a decade ago. I've tried to see it through a second time and I got bored. As melodramas go it's downright unbearable; Max Steiner's excellent score notwithstanding.

So yeah, not a fan.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I've never seen Gone With The Wind. So... yeah.

 

[trevanian]

The storytelling was no worse than the massive plot contrivances in the new Star Trek movie, and yet I don't consider myself an idiot for liking that film, either.

More good reason for me to give AVATAR a miss, thanks!

You might regret it. It's an experience.

A SINGLE MAN was an experience. It had mood, characterization, visual style, even whimsy.

And nobody turned extremely blue till they were dead.

These are all factors that keep me going to movies, and as of late they have been so largely absent from new movies that I just don't usually bother. I haven't seen one of these 'doesn't appeal to me but it is the IN thing to see' flicks since the 90s unless it was part of a paid writing assignment, and even though that sense of caution let me miss out on CHILDREN OF MEN, it saved me from several DOZEN hours of high-budget tedium that passes for eyecandy. Decent trade.

In terms of visual style, AVATAR's mocap looks to be more distracting than credible, and I'm pretty tired of visual distraction passing for spectacle.

I've seen two Tarkovsky movies this year -- STALKER and THE SACRIFICE -- on DVD; now THOSE were spectacle. I still don't even know how the guy achieved these images, it is like Kubrick and Lynch combined their subconscious minds and in-camera skills.

 

[Agenda]

More good reason for me to give AVATAR a miss, thanks!

You might regret it. It's an experience.

A SINGLE MAN was an experience. It had mood, characterization, visual style, even whimsy.

And nobody turned extremely blue till they were dead.

These are all factors that keep me going to movies, and as of late they have been so largely absent from new movies that I just don't usually bother. I haven't seen one of these 'doesn't appeal to me but it is the IN thing to see' flicks since the 90s unless it was part of a paid writing assignment, and even though that sense of caution let me miss out on CHILDREN OF MEN, it saved me from several DOZEN hours of high-budget tedium that passes for eyecandy. Decent trade.

In terms of visual style, AVATAR's mocap looks to be more distracting than credible, and I'm pretty tired of visual distraction passing for spectacle.

I've seen two Tarkovsky movies this year -- STALKER and THE SACRIFICE -- on DVD; now THOSE were spectacle. I still don't even know how the guy achieved these images, it is like Kubrick and Lynch combined their subconscious minds and in-camera skills.

I like the Coens, I like Lynch, I like Kubrick. I like different kinds of movies for different reasons. There are things I can get out of Avatar that I can't get out of the latest art house fare.

 

[Kegg]

I've seen two Tarkovsky movies this year -- STALKER and THE SACRIFICE -- on DVD; now THOSE were spectacle. I still don't even know how the guy achieved these images, it is like Kubrick and Lynch combined their subconscious minds and in-camera skills.

I love those movies (and Tarkovsky in general very dearly -seen Andrei Rublev? Gorgeous), but what's wrong with good old fashioned popcorn spectacle?

To put it another way: Avatar is not Solaris, it is Star Wars, to use a 1970s frame of reference for some reason. (On the same note it is also Fantastic Planet made wholesome and normal.)

And don't we all like films like that to a point?

 

[T'Baio]

Man, people were absolutely shitting on Avatar when the first trailers came out. Then Avatar Day? People called it embarrassing! Now it's the IN thing, eh?

Nice.

 

[trevanian]

what's wrong with good old fashioned popcorn spectacle?

To put it another way: Avatar is not Solaris, it is Star Wars, to use a 1970s frame of reference for some reason. (On the same note it is also Fantastic Planet made wholesome and normal.)

And don't we all like films like that to a point?

Not past a certain price point. I never saw BLUES BROS -- even though I enjoyed ANIMAL HOUSE and KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE -- strictly because I thought it was absurd to spend 30mil on a car crash comedy and wouldn't support that. Ditto for LEGAL EAGLES, though that was like 40something mil for a legal/arson romantic comedy, if I remember the trailer right.

I love lots of dumb action flicks ... especially ones that know they are (ACTION JACKSON is my go-to for that.) I even like ones that don't even know how stupid they are (Universal's disasterflicks of the mid70s with Heston are good examples.) But none of these were super-mega-event films or things that one is expected to see just on the basis of their existence. And I don't think of THE MATRIX as exceptionally brainy, but it was definitely my favorite film of 1999, because it was fun and involving and not insanely stupid -- in fact, pretty smart in the way it used its fx (most of which can't be said about its sequels.)

I admit I'm predisposed to dislike AVATAR just because I haven't enjoyed a new Cameron movie after T2, but even more to the point, I'm predisposed to dislike it for the same selfish reason folks used to use for bitching about the space program -- it cost too much (well, coupled with the visual aesthetic not being to my liking), and I'd rather have several lower-budget films made instead that I could choose from instead of the one that got made.

 

[T'Baio]

That's just...silly.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Remember when people were saying on its opening that it could never make $500 million? Now it's "$2 billion is meaningless."

Same shit as with the Trek movie, in that the folks determined to diminish the achievements of the things have to continue to move the goal posts.

None of this is going to affect the influence that this film is already having and will continue have on the movie industry. It's too successful and too important for people who are actually making movies to be dismissive of it in any way. It's the future, and by "future" I mean next week and next month and next year, not a decade from now.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Remember when people were saying on its opening that it could never make $500 million? Now it's "$2 billion is meaningless."

Who the heck said $2B is meaningless? Honestly. Let's just get some perspective here. Avatar is the most successful film in movie history based on dollars grossed. That's important. And praiseworthy. Heck, I'm looking forward to the day (this week, by all accounts) that it eclipses Titanic for most money grossed here in the US. But that doesn't mean more people went to see Avatar than any other film. And that's important, too. And it's not purely an "academic" argument, either. It's fact.

Sure times are different now. The home theater market makes it much more difficult for films to be huge events. But, then again, films enjoy very high ticket prices, especially when you factor in higher prices for 3-D shows.

Enjoy the accomplishments Avatar has achieved. Criticisms aside (and I've my share of them) it's earned its accolades. But putting the film into historical perspective is hardly dismissing its success as meaningless. Quite the opposite, actually.