I suppose there's a difference between "bad" and "routine," but that distinction is hard to make when a film is really routine. To me, it's death when the audience knows what's coming, and is literally waiting for the film to catch up.
Maybe, but I never felt like I was waiting for the film to catch up. I guess I just had a relaxed experience. I let the film unfold in front of me, rather than trying to outguess it at every turn. The pacing of the film really allowed that to happen; there were frequent moments of rest, where the ambience of the film's characters and environments took over.
Originally Posted by Yoda
As for the performances; I'm having a hard time judging them. Were they actually good, or are we just impressed that they weren't all creepy and disembodied? Like most of the film, I think technical achievement is spilling over into our collective impressions of its quality as a film.
Nah, I disagree. Zoe Saldana's performance, I'll argue, was a tremendously inspired one despite her digital character. She did seem real, yes, but all of her dialogue and emotional ticks - which were motion-captured from the actress herself - were full of conviction and devotion to the character.
As far as Sam Worthington goes, I thought his performance was actually much better
outside his avatar. He's an expressive guy in his own simple way, and with him there's always a genuine, underlying sense of heart. But hey, that's me. Maybe you thought differently.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I find it really hard to believe that anyone predicted all the twists and turns in Star Trek.
I wouldn't say we could have easily predicted
how things were going to happen, but I don't think it was too difficult to see what Nero was after, the result of the "final battle," etc. I mean, really? Was
Star Trek all that original?
Originally Posted by Yoda
Anyway, in regards to "how often are we treated to something truly different these days?" I dunno about truly different, but how about different at all? I'm not harping on Avatar because the good guys win; technically speaking, we all know how the overwhelming majority of movies will turn out, more or less. But there are ways of getting there that can be more or less conventional. It's not just that we know where Avatar's going, it's that we know every flippin' step it's going to take to get there.
Admittedly, I wouldn't say I knew every step it was going to take. And even when I did, I never felt like I was smarter or better than James Cameron. I just know how these films generally go. I will say, too, that I found some genuinely interesting concepts in the film: the literal and figurative implications of controlling an "avatar;" the partnership of a Na'Vi and his flying dragon-bird thing; the explanation of Eywa as one large, interconnected planetary organism. Nothing was very fleshed out or groundbreaking, but what can I say? For close to three hours, I was sufficiently entertained.
I also rather appreciate when a writer is courageous enough to step out of the status quo, even for a minute, and make things happen in the story that are cataclysmic or irrevocable. Anyone who saw
Avatar knows what I'm talking about. Too often in films something is in danger, but at the last second, it's spared.
Avatar does this to an extent in its finale, but it's also got the balls enough to follow through on the danger and despair it promises. Maybe not enough to change the formula - good guys win, bad guys lose - but that was a given already. Even Joss "Wash Murderer" Whedon couldn't stop himself from giving the Serenity the
W.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Not sure I follow why the effects would make the story seem simpler. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true; the effects are obscuring just what a retread it is.
I probably should have said "in terms of the film's expectations." For such an expensive film with revolutionary visual effects, you'd think the story would also follow suit. Maybe some of us did, I don't know. I really wasn't expecting much, but I can see how the simplicity of the story could stand out if somebody was expecting the whole package to be one for the books.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm not suggesting the story should have been as revolutionary as the effects, but I certainly expect something new. We're talking about inhabiting fake bodies, but the ethics and implications of this aren't really explored at all. I don't recall any time being spent on this. How about the ethics of land use and how we establish the concept of property with cultures that don't necessarily believe in it?
True, true. All good things. But I guess it's all about what you want the film to be. I don't think
Avatar, at any stage of production, was intended to be a thinking man's film. I'd have loved if it was, but I can tolerate the final product because they stuck to their guns and did it well.
Originally Posted by Yoda
There are lots of interesting, complicated questions here, and Avatar isn't interested in any of them. Nature good, technology and corporations bad...oh, and please ignore the $300 million our corporate studio spent on new technology to bring you this message.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? You've certainly got a point. But for what it's worth, I'm glad to see
Avatar didn't end up as just another
Spider-Man 3. Again, I don't think
Avatar is really trying to make sound comparisons with big business and environmentalism in the real world. It just uses those ideas to sell the emotional side of its story. You can say that's shallow, but... I mean, it's a James Cameron film. Action and special effects.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I don't think we should have to choose. If we do, then to me that makes it a mediocre film. If the highest praise we can muster is that the plot was so simplistic as to not have massive plot holes, then doesn't that demonstrate just how low the bar is being set? We're giving it credit for something which should be standard.
And yet, it so often isn't. Maybe the bar is being set drastically low, but I really believe that a film's plot - as long as it's competent and contains enough bells and whistles to keep me interested - can be simple and still satisfy. Sure, I prefer the likes of Charlie Kaufman, Steven Soderbergh, and the Coen Brothers. But with
Avatar, I wanted a lush visual effects experience and a cathartic story, and I got it.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Well, to each their own on that front. I have no problem with the occasional mindless thrill ride, but Avatar clearly thinks it's more than that, and lots of people are praising it in a way you don't usually see mere roller coaster-type films praised.
On the contrary, I think blockbusters are too often tolerated. I already mentioned my problems with
Star Trek. I loathe how forgiving people have been to
Revenge of the Sith, which I find extremely taxing and overblown.
Spider-Man 3 received a number of stellar reviews when it was released, despite the fact that it's a turd of a film. I mean, it's all subjective in the end.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I mean, as far as I can tell we all agree that the story is predictable and unoriginal, we all agree that the voiceover narration is downright bad, and we all agree that the film's agenda is transparent and fairly simplistic.
Again, I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I only agree to the first one. I didn't think the voiceover was terrible - or even a major piece of the film - and I don't think the film really has an agenda outside of being critically and commercially successful. There are connections - the film references Native Americans heavily for the Na'Vi, for example - but ultimately I think every story ends up using long-established archetypes as a model on which to operate. Rarely do you find a truly unique formula, and certainly never in a blockbuster.
Originally Posted by Yoda
It seems odd to me that we can't also agree, given all that, that it's a mediocre film. It's more important than good, I think, but perhaps that isn't a distinction that everyone feels we should make.
There are a lot of mediocre plots out there. How they're executed can really determine whether they're enjoyable or not.
Avatar was executed well, with much more loving attention (and time!) than most blockbusters are afforded. To me, that goes a long way.