What actually bums me out is that I'm pretty sure Robert Zemeckis is going to get passed over a bit here. Obviously
Beowulf wasn't the technical achievement that
Avatar is, but I think it's the first film to demonstrate that motion capture is, in fact, capable of rendering emotions ("
emotion capture"?
) believably.
A new word for the glossary, perhaps?
I missed
Beowulf. Is it worth seeing for the motion capture? You're right about Zemeckis pushing harder for motion capture usage than Cameron in recent years, though I'm just wondering if he has surpassed his wooden, glossy-eyed characters in
The Polar Express. The renderings are flawless, but there has always been a disconnect between where the digital form and the live actor are supposed to meet.
Avatar struggled with this too, usually when it came to minor characters, but the main characters all seemed to "be there," as it were.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm thinking more the steps along the way. This may just be me, but it really seemed like every single turn of the story was telegraphed, as detailed in my spoiler-tag-wrapped bit a couple posts back. I'm especially aghast with the whole good guy does bad thing/is won over/is exposed/redeems self thing, which is the basis of pretty much every romantic comedy ever made. I'm not sure if I could call one type of plot the least creative, but if I had to, I might put that at the top of the list. Though I admit it would have some competition from the good guy gets famous/alienates friends/redeems self trope.
We could probably do this all day, though. Sure, if we look at Kaufman, Lynch, Cronenberg, Anderson, etc., those conventional plot formulas tend to vanish. But on the whole - and certainly when it concerns a theatrical filmmaker like Cameron - those standards tend to stick. You and I both know it's because films are more marketable when they fit an already-established niche. Sure, they get tired eventually. But I think zedlen's point is well taken:
Avatar has got enough small details going for it that the larger formula seems fresher than it really is. And again, for me, stellar production value, rewarding performances, and engaging details go a long way... even when I'm getting fed a familiar plot.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I'll give you the interconnected thing (kinda spoiler-y, but not too bad, I suppose); I liked that idea. But that just made it all the more frustrating when it took it to such extreme lengths and didn't explore it much. It's funny, but to me this particular plot point was a good idea with poor execution, whereas I found the rest of the film to be the exact opposite.
If anything, I think it came too late. It seemed like Jake Sully would have learned this truth well before he did, but I guess the timing was helpful to the plot considering what begins to transpire immediately after. I would like to have seen the idea explored too, but that would have likely changed the focus of the film considerably.
Originally Posted by Yoda
The linking thing...well, I dunno. At first I kinda liked it, but then it occurred to me that it's just a literal representation of all the symbolic things the film was trying to say. Actually, now that I think more about it, that sums of the film pretty well for me: I think a smarter film is content with metaphors, while Avatar beats us over the head with its agenda by making everything literal. So, instead of nature being like an interconnected thing, it actually is. Instead of man (well, Na'vi) and beast having a symbiotic bond metaphorically, they have one biologically. It's like having a character destroy a relationship and then literally having them burn a physical bridge while walking away, just to make sure we get the point.
Eh, I don't know if it's that harsh, but your point is well-made. I guess it just didn't bother me. Rather than having an implied connection, I liked the detail of the symbiotic biology: interesting visually, and ultimately appropriate to the story. (It's also a nice fantasy for those of us who sometimes wish we could directly connect with the natural world.
)
Originally Posted by Yoda
Hmm, I'm actually not sure what you mean here, but I'll take a stab:
[spoilers="Avatar"]Do you mean Sigourney Weaver's character dying, or the Chief-dude? Or both? Or Michelle Rodriguez playing...well...the same character she always plays?
Actually, I was talking more about...
WARNING: "Avatar" spoilers below
...the destruction of the Home Tree. A lesser film would have just had it threatened, and then ultimately saved by the heroes at the last possible moment. But by following through, Avatar committed itself to an irrevocable event that, for all intents and purposes, meant the Na'Vi would be completely changed forever.
Now, I do realize that Avatar conceded this bravery and, in the finale, did exactly what I said a lesser film would do. This is largely why I docked it a bucket - I would have rather the film live with its own consequences a little more than it did. But hey, the finale was going to be epic, so something had to be at stake.
And regarding Sigourney Weaver, her character's death fed, really, the most predictable aspect of the film for me. I knew, from the moment someone said a human could become their avatar permanently, what was going to happen to Jake Sully. Regrettable, but hey... no film is perfect.
...the destruction of the Home Tree. A lesser film would have just had it threatened, and then ultimately saved by the heroes at the last possible moment. But by following through,
Avatar committed itself to an irrevocable event that, for all intents and purposes, meant the Na'Vi would be completely changed forever.
Now, I do realize that
Avatar conceded this bravery and, in the finale, did exactly what I said a lesser film would do. This is largely why I docked it a bucket - I would have rather the film live with its own consequences a little more than it did. But hey, the finale was going to be epic, so something had to be at stake.
And regarding Sigourney Weaver, her character's death fed, really, the most predictable aspect of the film for me. I knew, from the moment someone said a human could become their avatar permanently, what was going to happen to Jake Sully. Regrettable, but hey... no film is perfect.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Regardless, I honestly didn't think of any of those as terribly brave. There were lots of ancillary characters and they all seemed pretty expendable to me. I'm with you on Whedon, and I like that he understands the importance of making the peril he puts his characters in real from time to time, but I really don't think Cameron took any chances here. Maybe everyone else was more attached to these second-tier characters than I was, though?
Nah, the supporting characters were pretty lame. I was hoping for some additional stuff between Neytiri and her father, but maybe we'll get some deleted stuff in the DVD? As for Whedon, this is largely why I prefer
X-Men: The Last Stand to its predecessors. Whereas Singer's films unfailingly maintain the same status quo to the end as they start with, Ratner's film makes leaps that change its characters tremendously. (Of course, then it pretty much backtracks on all of them in the final moments, lol.
)
Originally Posted by Yoda
This honestly surprises me a little. I think Avatar definitely has the ambition to be, if not a thinking man's film, certainly a thought-provoking one. I could be wrong, but it is interesting that we had such different impressions about its goals. The production feels sufficiently self-righteous that I think it thinks it's making some profound points. But we've definitely strayed into Conjecture Land here.
Yeah, I very much agree that
Avatar, more so than any other Cameron film before it, had the chance to be a thinker of a film. It probably would have taken a much different form, narratively-speaking, which is a hard sell when you're talking about a $500 million budget.
I can't agree, however, that
Avatar was trying to make any profound statements about anything. I think Cameron was after a theatrical adventure film that would gross a billion dollars, and knew that tapping into the corporate-greed-versus-environmentalism concept would probably take him there. He might think a film as large as this one has the ability to turn heads, but I really can't see how anything more than an unabated appeal to emotion for the sake of ticket sales was on anyone's agenda.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Again, this is very interesting, because I've never thought of Cameron as the Michael Bay/action-and-effects type. I think Terminator 2: Judgment Day was very thought-provoking, for example, and I thought The Abyss was fascinating and methodical. Difference of opinion, I suppose.
That's a fair point. Both films admittedly explored their own content more than
Avatar did.
T2 is probably his most successful film in that respect, with the machine experiencing a pretty substantive change as a result of his relationship with John Conner. But it's still an action spectacle at its core... as is
Aliens... as is
True Lies... as is
Titanic. The man just has a greater love affair with production challenges than he does with story. In
The Abyss, although the characters confront the best and worst of human nature - which is underscored for them by the aliens - I do think the film is pretty predictable and a little bit cheesy.
Originally Posted by Yoda
That said, I have to disagree with the idea that Avatar isn't trying to make real-world comparisons. I think it is, and I think it's tremendously clumsy about it. The comparisons to American history are very obvious, of course, but there are several deliberate parallels with the Iraq war; for example, the phrase "shock and awe" seems to have survived 150 years in the future. I kind of agree with you anyway, because the film's all over the place with its politics and can't really decide what point it wants to make, but I think that's a sign that it's simply confused.
Well, I said I didn't think
Avatar was trying to make
sound comparisons. The comparisons are most definitely there, and Cameron acknowledges that himself. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think the film can be considered a legitimate voice in any political arena... and I think Cameron knows this too. To me, the politics of the film seem to have been used to sell tickets - nothing more. Otherwise, methinks this discussion would be far more widespread (a la
The Da Vinci Code and gnosticism).
Originally Posted by Yoda
And, of course, the environmental agenda is impossible to miss.
Is it really an agenda, though? Is Cameron donating a portion of the revenue to Greenpeace? Did he speak at the recent Climate Council in Copenhagen? I think there's certainly an environmental message - respect and preserve the environment - but is anyone really opposed to that sentiment?
Originally Posted by Yoda
Diff'rent strokes, for sure. But does this mean you'd have rated it lower if you'd expected it to be more intelligent/original/whatever? Is it a genuinely good film, or is it only good if accompanied by the caveat that you can't expect much from it?
It's a genuinely good film in the same way
Star Wars is a genuinely good film. Simple, formulaic, charismatic, adventure-filled, and memorable. (Note: I'm not saying
Avatar is revolutionizing film like
Star Wars did in the 1970s; merely that they're comparable in quality.) It doesn't approach the pantheon of films we all consider truly exceptional and original, but does it really have to? I think it's a good film because it dictated its own terms, stuck to its core, executed well, and stayed solid with many instances of brilliance.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I don't think blockbusters get much of a pass, though. Sure, they make money; bad films make money all the time, and it doesn't really bother me. Not everyone takes film all that seriously, and being casual about it is a perfectly valid way to consume it. But I take it for granted that just about everyone here is a different kind of moviegoer, and that we're all aware of what movies can be, to the point at which we don't often tolerate the ones that fail to live up to the inherent potential of the medium.
Yeah, but I think we also understand that they can't all be Oscar winners, either. There's going to be sore spots in every film. It's just the nature of the action/adventure genre. I'll admit that I won't hold
Avatar to the same critical standards as I do, say,
The Reader. They're just two totally different films on two totally different levels. So yeah, even I give blockbusters some slack. But whereas most blockbusters are riddled with asinine characters and plot holes,
Avatar - formulaic story be damned - manages to be not only competent and complete, but pretty exciting too.
Originally Posted by Yoda
This is why I think, for example, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen can make over $400 million domestically with a mere 20% on the Tomatometer. What I'm getting at is that they get a pass from people who expect little out of their films, but not from most of the people who watch films seriously, either as a profession or as a hobby.
Well, the
Transformers sequel seems to have significant problems, too.
Star Trek's issues are pretty small in comparison, probably, but I still think a film with holes in the plot that are pretty evidently glossed over is negligible.
Originally Posted by Yoda
The fact that the voiceover wasn't a major piece of the film, actually, is one of the things that I think makes it so bad. It was fairly sporadic and completely unnecessary. As for how bad it was when it was used; I'll have to see it again, but I distinctly remembers lines like "I had to take it to the next level," which sounds like something out of Bring It On 3.
You could say that Linda Hamilton's voice-overs in
T2 were similarly sporadic and confused. I think they worked because they narrated a bit more on the figurative side than Sam Worthington's in
Avatar, but his really worked for me when they were tied to his daily task of logging videos. Toward the end, you can infer that the voice-overs are really those logs, but they do kinda fall apart because there's a long span of time where you don't even see him continuing that task. And yeah, that line was bad.
Originally Posted by Yoda
how much we forgive the almost universally-acknowledged shortcomings in light of the almost universally-acknowledged technical prowess.
Yeah, but I don't think the shortcomings hold as much weight for everyone, from film to film, and that's where it doesn't seem fair to put
Avatar's failings into that box. Sure, it's simple and formulaic, but that doesn't necessarily equal a bad film in every case. You could argue that Pixar films follow the same basic formula, but they're so touching and imaginative that it really doesn't matter.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I think Golgot's point is a pretty good one; it's so obvious that we've all failed to make it: how much are we going to enjoy this movie in a few years? Even if you like it now, going in with low expectations and relatively blown away by the technology, will it have any kind of staying power?
Sure, I think it will fade. It'll become dated like anything else. I don't think anyone really considers it a seminal film, except that it made a lot of money. But I do think it's an old-fashioned adventure film that stands apart from other blockbusters because it was made largely by a filmmaker, not a studio. To me, that makes a whole lot of difference.