So has anyone seen Avatar yet?

[-FCM-]

Incredible experience, amazing visual style, great directing...

...almost covers up the fact that the writing is legitimately B-movie quality. It somehow manages to take an extremely derivative formula that is famous for being condescending and actually makes it more condescending. It relies very heavily on the projection of the audience, and if you want to see what I mean, try replacing the main character with a black guy and see how much the story changes. The source of the effect of the projection is kind of why everyone hates white people.

All in all it just wasn't really that good. I know for a fact that if it was all live action, and if James Cameron hadn't spent half of the $500 million budget on marketing, no one would give a shit.

Of course, that is kind of a ridiculous statement, I realize, because the visuals are such a huge part of the movie. Which leads me back to my point. I just wish people would quit it with the hyperbole, because it's not really fair to the other good movies that came out this year. James Cameron is a good director, but he didn't create a good film with Avatar, he bought it.

I'm not trying to be the douche that goes against the grain, this is just my opinion. No one else here feels the same way at least a little?

 

[De-Ting]

All in all it just wasn't really that good. I know for a fact that if it was all live action, and if James Cameron hadn't spent half of the $500 million budget on marketing, no one would give a s***.

It was all live action...except obviously they made the actors into mystical humanoids, because that's a lot more interesting than an African tribe or Spartans or something, which is one of the ways this movie is as original as it is unoriginal.

Like Stal said, Fern Gully is very comparable to it.

 

[Ted_Wolff]

So I have to drop only half a billion and I'm guaranteed one of the highest-selling films of all time?

I better change my life goals, then. It's a wonder the Yankees don't win every World Series.

And I don't think the Fern Gully comparison is adequate at all.

Take what FCM said first,

• "Incredible experience, amazing visual style, great directing...

and ignore what he said second,

• "the writing is legitimately B-movie quality"

and realize that movies are more than the story they tell.

PS, saying "try replacing the main character with a black guy and see how much the story changes" is kind of like saying "try imagining Bruce Willis isn't dead in The Sixth Sense and see how much the story changes." So what if some stories rely on a projection, especially if they're used well?

 

[De-Ting]

And I don't think the Fern Gully comparison is adequate at all.

-Guy comes to place to do...whatever.

-Guy becomes one of the natives.

-Natives find out Guy was there for other reasons.

-Guy helps natives stop the people he was with in the first place.

Sure it's missing some elements, but it's basically the same when you get right down to it.

 

[MikeyVassallo]

Um... right on down to the Tree they are trying to protect.

I didn't see this in the theater. I watched a screener. It was standard TV quality, like if TBS were running it. The movie didn't hold up. If you have to experience it in the theater to "get it" then it isn't a good movie.

I could watch the original Star Wars trilogy on my iPhone and still feel the same amount of excitement as I did when I first saw them.

 

[De-Ting]

Actually, you have to experience it without thinking "this is gonna suck this is gonna suck there is another duck this is gonna suck" to get it.

 

[MikeyVassallo]

Also, Ted, I'm kind of surprised. Somebody as literary as you would know the story of the "noble savage" is just about as old as it gets... is it because this one is in 3D?

 

[-FCM-]

I should have mentioned: my issue with the movie is how everyone is hailing it as a masterpiece. It is extremely enjoyable, that's it.

Movies are more than the story they tell, but they should have a good story from first and figure it out from there. I understand that the movie is basically live action, what I'm saying is, without the effects, people would not be that interesting.

I do believe the writing to be b-movie quality. When someone actually says, "I didn't sign up for this shit," especially in the context of a major turning point in the heat of the climax, you have a problem. I realize this is subjective, but I expect more from movies that people are claiming should win the big one.

There is nothing wrong with the audience projecting, but it is what they are required to project that is causing the problem for me. It is now the most textbook example of what is called "the white messiah complex," which is exactly what it sounds like. Basically what is happening is that the transformation that drives the film's plot is, "wait, white person actually wants to join (insert indigenous spiritual people here)?" and then winds up being the only one that can save them. I realize that saying "what if he was black" is like saying "what if Bruce Willis wasn't dead": that is the problem. There are movies out there in which ethnicity can, does, and should play a huge role in the story. In the case of Avatar, unfortunately, it only can and does.

The villain is completely one-dimensional. That's a just a good old classic problem.

Again, I had a lot of fun at Avatar. It was an incredible visual experience that I believe everyone should see, but that's about it. The argument that I am making here is that it shouldn't be hailed as the best film of the year, which I don't think is an absurd argument to make.

 

[MikeyVassallo]

What was the best film you saw this year FCM?

 

[Ted_Wolff]

I have no problem with what you're saying then, FCM. It's obviously not the goose's gravy.

Stal, I'm not saying the story is hot, new, and fresh. I said in a previous post it's entirely unoriginal. Just like Star Wars, reduced to its basic plot, isn't anything original.

My point was, if Avatar were to be further developed (as Star Wars was), then the experience of seeing Avatar (i.e., it is hot stuff, technologically impressive, and provoked many to see it again and again) could be similar to what it was for those who saw Star Wars (which was technologically impressive, hot stuff, and provoked many to see it again) when it first came out so much so that in 30 years it remains a notable film experience.

 

[MikeyVassallo]

Then I posit that it would not because Star Wars' impact was greater due to it being one of the very first things that was merchandised in the fashion that it was. Avatar is subject to being released in a society where even the characters from the movie have their own Facebook Fan Profile.... marketing is just a part of the blockbuster film making process and not something entirely alien and new like it was in the 70's.

 

[Chris_Crime]

and Crazy Heart wins the gold!

 

[MikeyVassallo]

Is it good, I'd like to see it.

 

[Chris_Crime]

Yep, it's good. I haven't seen Hurt Locker so I can't compare what I'd prefer overall (best film oty), but man, yeah, Crazy Heart is some good down home cooking. nothing bitter about the taste, but not schmaltzy either. Nom nom nom nom nom

 

[used44]

I still haven't seen this, which gives me that too-cool-for-school ego boost I crave.

 

[Lien]

Crazy heart reminded me too much of my father. Like a lot. A great film and everyone should see this!

 

[tm2master1]

FCM got it right - Avatar although it looked cool and is an experience, wasn't that good of a movie. My vote goes to hurt locker for movie of the year, well either that or dead snow

 

[GRColin]

My vote goes to hurt locker for movie of the year, well either that or dead snow

I sure hope Hurt Locker doesn't win best picture. I want that award to go to D9.

 

[Bretimus_v2]

...as long as it doesn't go to Precious.

 

[Chris_Crime]

Julie & Julia, anyone?? I can see Meryl Streep winning an Oscar for her role