Technology + Film
I went to see this with some people who know a lot about film compared to average goers.
I was thinking a little more about this, and it doesn’t give me such a great feeling that people will just jump on the bandwagon of technology so fast.
I was told that I “didn’t watch the movie correctly or that I had seen too many movies and that was the problem” even though I said the movie was entertaining.
It becomes a faux pas to say: the dialogue wasn’t great, some action parts were actually boring, the 3d was only really effective in several scenes, even “Dancing with Wolves” in space bit feels like it can get you blacklisted.
To the average film goer, its not that content doesn’t matter, you can’t even talk about the $**T^ing content. This has happened with books as well. Maybe it has something to do with globalization were just the vague nonsensical appeal like the enviro slant sells so much across language barriers that it will just crowd everything out.
My earlier post: sorry, I’m a cranky person.
Has anyone re-watched the Abyss- I’m sure it doesn’t hold up compared to when it was released. Ending was terrible.
I think Spielberg ,out the crowd of Hwood majors, has made better recent movies that have mass appeal:Munich, War of the Worlds. At least with War of the Worlds you got some sense of the power of the alien technology. With Avatar, you don’t ever get the sense that they are using earth moving technology. Cameron might simply be too technologically oriented, but this what people want I guess. I just know the same crowd I saw this with will be complaining about how many stupid special effects movies there are next year.
@Mike Spence – thanks, it’s nice to know that I made the cut! :)
@KJ – I agree. My political leanings are fairly sympathetic with Cameron’s pro-Green, anti-war/imperialism sentiments but I think when he delivers that message so obtusely while using Lisa Frank color schemes he undermines his own cause.
@Ben
>>was anyone else bugged by Horner’s shameless recycling of cues from WILLOW and GLORY (at LEAST, I probably failed to notice many more)…I figured he’d be through providing hack scores for Cameron after copping Khatchaturian’s GAYANEH opening so, so, so blatantly (and without credit) for the opening of ALIENS. Lame. Used to love the dude. Till I found out what a hack he was about stealing compositions from actual composers.<<
I can think of few movie composers who bug me more than James Horner. In addition to Khatchaturian he’s used on several occasions the opening of one of the Brahm’s symphonies (with a tempo change) – WILLOW was one of those instances, if memory serves. The man is shameless in his rip-offs of other composers and in his recycling of his own themes.
He’s also expressed complete disdain of movie music – so I guess he doesn’t think he has to deliver anything interesting/original.
Having recently attended a showing of Avatar in L.A. with several people who practically dry-humped the film when it was over and a (sold-out) audience who applauded it afterward — yes, applauded a movie screen! — I was regarded as the rough equivalent of Satan for daring to suggest it was clunky, cliched, and (during the last hour) boring. And I am entirely okay with being Satan under those conditions.
Yes, intimating that Avatar (or its ilk) isn’t really very good brands one instantly as a ‘film snob.’ You might as well don a tweed jacket, a cravat, and a pince-nez. To which I must respond that I’m all for mindless entertainment — provided that it’s ENTERTAINING. I actually fell asleep during the climactic battle, and I didn’t really care about the pseudo-African jumped-up smurfs or their wispy mythologies any more than I cared about the caricatured industrial-military complex that threatened to destroy them.
So color me Satan. Call me a snob.
Let them eat Cameron; I’ll be over here taking an ax to that damnable tree of life.
I am probably a film snob, and I had a ton of complaints about AVATAR (see above), but I want to make it clear that I still enjoyed the hell out of it and DO think it’s a game-changer (there will be better 3D, but this is still a solid entry, I think), and hope Cameron makes another movie set in this Colonial Marines metaverse that ALIENS and AVATAR seem to take place in…especially with different alien species to create avatars of. That aspect of the film and the portalling between consciousnesses was really interesting and well conceived and deserves to be explored more, though maybe in a 2 hour film, max. The body as organic machine, like the dock-loader Ripley enters in ALIENS or the extremely similar robots the marines use in AVATAR. VERY cool ideas worth more movies.
I saw Avatar last night. I’m glad I did; not that I shall watch it a second time. I think some critic called it ‘Dancing with Smurfs’, very funny and very apt but the point of the film is the technology I suppose. I couldn’t get excited about the 3D aspect, does it increase ones enjoyment of the film? I think I would have enjoyed the film as much if it had been 2D. Of course 3D will become the norm, but it won’t help a scene with two people sat at a table talking. I thought the world Pandora looked great, and being populated with women who have six foot long legs is a bonus, or is that California?
I saw Avatar last night. I’m glad I did; not that I shall watch it a second time. I think some critic called it ‘Dancing with Smurfs’, very funny and very apt but the point of the film is the technology I suppose. I couldn’t get excited about the 3D aspect, does it increase ones enjoyment of the film? I think I would have enjoyed the film as much if it had been 2D. Of course 3D will become the norm, but it won’t help a scene with two people sat at a table talking. I thought the world Pandora looked great, and being populated with women who have six foot long legs is a bonus, or is that California?
This film was an amazing experience.
I took my 9 year old son and he loved it, as did the entire audience; applause at the end of the film.
The 3D technology is stunning. If the future of film, I am sold. Even if it is in it’s infancy.
Yes, we’ve seen the story before, but it’s not what one does, but how one does it. Cameron hits it out of the park with this one. I wondered what the hell he was doing the last 10 + years and am glad he waited.
The film is a visual treat, tour de force. The acting is solid, everything about it works.
Not sure how one can walk out of this picture disappointed.
MAUD’S SON
“… from less overbearing composition and more sounds of the forest, leaves, water, wind, animals(that aren’t roaring at character), so we could get more immersed in the world.”
Agreed. Not a major issue for me, but would have preferred more crescendo or dynamics in this department,
IN ABSINTHEIA
“Idiocy in the U.S. is getting worse every year, and it looks like it will just continue getting more moronic.”
I am sue we could all generalize to death our opinions and thoughts on other countries, cultures, et al. Give it a rest with the insults Francis.
ROMAN PETROV
“In terms of composition, what bothered me most was Cameron’s use of zooming. It happened at least ten times in the film, and I really couldn’t figure out why he implemented it. Not only did it feel false, but it would also throw off his mis-en-scene which would have stayed fine without the zooming. I understand if you want to go for a verite, slightly docu-drama edge, but considering the rest of the photography, zooming felt inappropriate.”
I thought I read his approach. He wanted to create a more intimate feel with the camera. hence, the general lack of classical compositions; locked down shots.. I did notice a few Snap Zooms (as they are called), but it was not terribly distracting. Not like hiring the crew from THE SHIELD to shoot THE Mist scenes; which i enjoyed the film, but found the abuse of the snap zooms and hand held camera too much.
ROGER HAYN
“Ah yes, and epidemic of idiocy is now exclusive to the United States…”
Opinions vary.
BEN SIMINGTON
“….this is going to be just like the introduction of color. Some people are going to misuse it very naively, phoning it in, slapping it on. And then some filmmakers and Depth Designers will become renowned for knowing wtf they are doing with 3D. Can’t wait for the good ones.”
As I previously stated, the technology is in its infancy.
As far as Cameron ripping off ? The story’s been around for a 1000 years. It’s not what one does, but how one does it. No one has done it quite like this.
I often find in film commentary, that many simply look for fault when they could choose to merely enjoy the damn film. I think Cameron accomplished his goals, which I doubt were to win Cannes and gain the respect or applaud of film snobs who are convinced Lars and Wim are gods gift to cinema an Spielberg and Scorsese are assholes.
since when was the first film to introduce new technology ever a masterpiece? The jazz singer kinda sucks, but everyone says it’s amazing now. And there were plenty of people saying that sound would ruin the art form of movies. It didnt. And no matter how terrible of a story Avatar may have, it will never be remembered for it. It will be remembered for the technology it created. We should be more excited for technology. I don’t see where you can draw the line on special effects as an art form. Let’s try to have an open mind here people.
I really don’t think I would be hearing any bashing of the 3d technology in this forum if the story was better.
Thats all
Do people really find the visual design of this movie that astonishing? Some of the jungle scenery was pretty cool, but I didn’t find anything remarkable about the robots, Na’vi, or the flying creatures. My problem is that from a visual standpoint, Cameron isn’t showing me anything I haven’t seen before (in his own work and other big-budget Hollywood movies with aliens). I mean sure it’s in 3D, but it’s more or less traditional 2D composition with some depth. That can’t entertain forever. Maybe it just comes down to whether you feel these images are unique or not. I didn’t, but then again I tend to gravitate towards movies with outlandish visual ideas. Point being: If I felt that Cameron sufficiently satisfied my eyes, I would have been willing to forgive the flaws of the script and “merely enjoy the damn film.”
Unique images ?
What is this 2D to 3D comparison in composition ? What was it supposed to do ? The visual language of cinema is what it is; you either get Russian montage or German Expressionism or a combination of the two.
Master shots, wides, close ups, OTS’s, steadicam, hand held, locked down, reverses, crane shots … I mean, I’m not following what was supposed to happen here ?
The FX are first rate in this picture and complete to standard of what we should expect in a modern film.
Should not the technology serve to enhance ?
Were you expecting to see the meaning of life with this ?
It’s a movie, set in the future, on another planet, where Marines are trying to take over the land of the natives. It’s pop corn and Cameron makes some gnarly pop corn.
Hmm… I’m just saying I didn’t find the world of Avatar to be especially unique. Meaning there came a certain point where I got bored of the visual style (3D wizardry included) and expected the story to pick up the slack a little. It didn’t. For me. So I might as well have fallen asleep. But I was indeed expecting to see the meaning of life.
I agree with you, Steve. This was a 2D movie dressed up in a 3D frock.
Also, @ David M.K:
“Let them eat Cameron.”
Right on, brother. That should be your description in the “About Me” on your profile page.
Yeah, is it such a blinding newsflash that Cameron recycles plotlines? That’s not a valid criticism actually unless you applied it to every writer who’s existed in the past 100 years.
“Should not the technology serve to enhance?”
Exactly. Special fx is simply window dressing, it’s aesthetically pleasing (usually) and, if done well, compliments the story, but if the story is simply a retread that adds nothing of its own, then all you have is a nicely wrapped empty box.
But if people are looking for some kind of deeper meaning in Avatar then they REALLY need to brush up on some literature, not to mention film in general.
Is saying “This was a 2D movie dressed up in a 3D frock” meant to be criticism? I would have thought that every 3D film was a 2D movie dressed etc.
I’m pretty sure they’re suggesting that the 3D was just slathered on top like gravy (or movie theater popcorn butter substance) rather than lovingly, thoughtfully conceived of from the very genesis of the project and therefore intelligently interwoven with the very DNA of the film’s philosophy. Which I don’t agree with. Thought the 3D was fine, not always but sometimes spectacular.
Isn’t Caneron following in the steps of Lucas and trying to move towards a cinema that doesn’t require pesky things like script, acting.
^ Those are pesky things. The naughty bits of the filmmaking process.
This movie sucks, ’nuff said.
@Doinel: If true that would make him far more interesting.
@Doinel
Having watched 5 minutes of Episode 2 on TV last night as a little refresher on STAR WARS, I can confirm Cameron’s script and acting are way peskier than anything Lucas has cooked up in the last 20 years.
It seems like Cameron took the Ewoks from Return of the Jedi and blew ‘em up 12 times then stole a couple of points from The Matrix’s plotline and called it the most groundbreaking movie of this decade. Plus the villains were one-dimensional and the whole thing was way too predictable.
The groundbreaking is in reference to the technology of making the film.
It truly is quite an achievement
Wow, the villains were one-dimensional? That’s practically an achievement.
I’d second what Matt said and what JR Hudson said.
I feel like the problem with these forums is that people seem to geek out on film in such a way that they lose any real broad view. Think of the history of literature and then think how silly it is to gripe that a story is familiar. I mean, really. Just about every story is familiar. Maybe you might try reading Joseph Campbell?
I found the story adequate and I liked that his critique of American imperialism was so clear.
I think anyone who goes to a James Cameron movie expecting good dialogue and graceful exposition probably should avoid talking about movies in public.
I understand that people are so overwhelmed by the technological side of the film, that they argue that it is okay to forget about the story, and “Avatar” partially succeeds in this department. It is sort of akin to “Star Wars” in that it took a familiar story and adapted it to its specific needs. However, Cameron’s film (to me) was so familiar and “by the numbers” that it lost any element of suspense because its conclusion felt inevitable. I just can’t believe that audiences could disregard the story so easily, since they clearly embraced “The Dark Knight,” which definitely had an unconventional plot structure, when compared to other blockbuster entertainments.
The difference is that there is some enhancing value to the story of Avatar and that The Dark Knight is not only a mess but it’s also morally repulsive. I can understand people reacting tepidly to Avatar but I don’t understand at all the disdain people have for it. It’s sappy but it’s also timely. It addresses the issues we’re dealing with in the world right now in a way that is affirming. I’m personally much happier about people getting off on this movie than wallowing in that other ode to fascism.
KJ
There’s allegories and then there’s allegories. Still a vital mode of representation. But, Lord, spare us the ham-fist and tin ear of a director drunk on his own self-importance.