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?