Avatar - James Cameron Returns! (Spoilers in thread, obviously!)

[Captain Pierce]

Again, we're all free to have different perspectives. Mine is that this movie was made to make money

Oh, my God, the horror. He totally should have taken 20th Century Fox's $250 million (or, again, whatever number people on the Internet want to imagine it was) and made something that only twelve people on the planet would want to see.

Yes, I know that's not what you're saying, but come on. We're talking about James "Terminator 2"/"Titanic" Cameron here. This is a dude who does not **** around. When you're making movies with that kind of budget (and both of those, IIRC either set new records for a film budget or came damn close, and this one probably would have too if it weren't for Transformers 2), you have to consider making your money back. Again, though, having seen the film, I feel that it definitely "has its base in something human."

And that INTENTION being so far removed from the hacked themes and plot devices of the piece (as described by audience members) make it that much more dispicable in nature.

It's like pretending to be friends with someone just so that you can sell them on your product.

Dude, hang on. Are you not the same Chamber005 who has said in the thread about the YouTube Phantom Menace review that the only reason that the original Star Wars movies were good is because they were based on hacked themes and plot devices? So Lucas gets a pass on that, but you're going to crucify Cameron for it? Look, I'm not going to try and convince anyone that this is the most "original" movie out there; if I wanted to be snarky, I'd say it was Aliens 2 by way of Dances with Wolves. But, just like it doesn't matter that Star Wars is Saturday morning serials crossed with Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, or just like it didn't matter that District 9 is Alien Nation multiplied by apartheid... it doesn't matter/ Avatar is not defined by its inspirations, just as neither of the other movies I just mentioned are. It delivers its own experience, and that's an experience that (as I suppose people can tell by now) has greatly impressed me.

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

You know, I enjoyed this movie so much I'm thinking of going to see it again next week, but at the IMAX this time around...

 

[Chamber005]

Frankly I have noted that frequently the loudest mumbling about artistic intent comes from people who actually aren't doing much of anything, at all.

What does discussing artistic intent have to do with..."doing much of anything at all"?

Since when did being prolific (or, profitable) have anything to do with artistic intent?

Seriously, clean out whatever the salesmen have injected you with. Art is not about MAKING MONEY. If the intention of so-called art is to make money then it's not art, it's a by-product of a business entity.

In this case, the film Avatar is a by-product of the business entity that is the production of Avatar, which also includes its entities of marketing, toys, video games, assorted managing branches, etc.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

If you know anything about Cameron, you should know that his sole intent is not just to make money.
If it is, I doubt he would have spent over a decade working on and developing Avatar.
Honeslty the man could have churned out any piece of garbage after Titanic and it probably would have hit #1 at the box office.

Like him or not, the man is an artist.
Doesn't mean you have to respect or even like his art... but he is an artist.

 

[diego1235467]

Well I'm not actually calling him anything bad. I'm simply saying that it's as ridiculous for me to label him based on his posts, as it is for him to judge the film without seeing it.

But if mods feel it necessary to remove my post, than by all means do so.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

But if mods feel it necessary to remove my post, than by all means do so.

Done.

And let's go ahead and count that as a general warning for the thread as a whole.
This kind of debate is interesting, and for the most part healthy....

Let's just make sure it stays that way.
Just don't get personal - and we'll be fine.

Thanks.

 

[Chamber005]

Are you saying there's something wrong with that?

Absolutely. If the intention of James Cameron making this movie was to turn a profit or to gain further accolades then, yes, I think that is a dispicable intention (or, motivation) for any artist to have.

It is the production company's position (not the filmmaker's) to make (fund) movies to turn a profit. They do that by hiring people who bring something to them that they cannot themselves create.

What the filmmaker creates is then a by-product of that complete and final package which includes, but is not limited to, the film itself.

So if the filmmaker's intentions are in league with the intentions of the production company, the filmmaker has not accomplished anything artistic, they've only accomplished supplying a product that is then indistinguishable from the film's marketing, toy line, video games, etc as their intentions are identical -- which an artist and a business should never be.

The moment the artist allows the reason for his/her art to exist for the sole purpose of profit or accolades they have, in effect, died as artists. They have become business men in total.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

The moment the artist allows the reason for his/her art to exist for the sole purpose of profit or accolades they have, in effect, died as artists.

So how do you judge that exactly?
I mean - how is it that you can tell who is doing it for the money and who isn't?
What sort of method do we follow to know the reasons for other people's actions?

I'm asking because without some sort of objective way to judge - this thread is going to spin into 20 more pages of "he's an artist" "no he's not"
I mean, I could (theoretically) agree with your statement - and still vehemently disagree about Cameron in regards to your statement.

So how can you split the 'true' artists from the ones who are simply businessmen?
Doesn't seem possible.

 

[Sad Max]

I can only assume that Chamber speaks from personal experience. What else could underwrite that degree of black-and-white certitude?

 

[David Jimerson]

Absolutely. If the intention of James Cameron making this movie was to turn a profit or to gain further accolades then, yes, I think that is a dispicable intention (or, motivation) for any artist to have.

It is the production company's position (not the filmmaker's) to make (fund) movies to turn a profit. They do that by hiring people who bring something to them that they cannot themselves create.

What the filmmaker creates is then a by-product of that complete and final package which includes, but is not limited to, the film itself.

So if the filmmaker's intentions are in league with the intentions of the production company, the filmmaker has not accomplished anything artistic, they've only accomplished supplying a product that is then indistinguishable from the film's marketing, toy line, video games, etc as their intentions are identical -- which an artist and a business should never be.

The moment the artist allows the reason for his/her art to exist for the sole purpose of profit or accolades they have, in effect, died as artists. They have become business men in total.

And then, the big bad ol' real world intruded.

 

[Kholi]

I have nothing Against the artist that wants to work four jobs and do his or her art on the side.

I also have nothing against the artist that wants to make a living being an artist and nothing else.

 

[Batutta]

Jeez, I take a nap for a few hours and all hell breaks loose! I guess this is the downside of having a forum where people politely discuss things at length. If this was Aint it Cool, this would have ended several pages ago with someone calling someone else a derogatory name for homosexuals and that would have been it...I will add no more gasoline to this fire. Peace.

 

[Chamber005]

If you know anything about Cameron, you should know that his sole intent is not just to make money.
If it is, I doubt he would have spent over a decade working on and developing Avatar.
Honeslty the man could have churned out any piece of garbage after Titanic and it probably would have hit #1 at the box office.

Like him or not, the man is an artist.
Doesn't mean you have to respect or even like his art... but he is an artist.

lol I think it HAS spun into a thread of on-going opposing opinions regarding not just the movie but also the man.

I watched and listened to interviews he did prior to Titanic and T2 and Abyss and I felt that he wasn't lying regarding his intentions (his reasons for making those movies). I watched and listened to interviews he's done on Avatar, and I feel like he's lying about his intentions.

So either, IMO, he was a much better liar when he was younger, or he wasn't lying when he did those interviews on other movies and is lying now.

A lot of other people here seem to be basing his intentions on the film itself, which, to me, is only an aspect of the whole and cannot really gauge the filmmaker's intention behind their creation.

Maybe I just know when someone is trying to sell me on something that they don't personally find to be true.

The title of the thread is "James Cameron Returns". So I think us having a debate about his artistic integrity at it pertains to Avatar is hugely appropriate, especially since a large part of the audience is going to see Avatar because Cameron's name is used as leverage in the marketing, much like Spielberg/Cruise was leveraged in the marketing of Minority Report.

 

[Sad Max]

What did people who have viewed the film take away from it, thematically?

 

[Luis Caffesse]

I watched and listened to interviews he did prior to Titanic and T2 and Abyss and I felt that he wasn't lying regarding his intentions (his reasons for making those movies). I watched and listened to interviews he's done on Avatar, and I feel like he's lying about his intentions.

Well, there's no real way to debate this then, I guess.
If you feel he's lying about his intentions - then that's how you feel.
Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind on that.

Just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Chamber005]

I can only assume that Chamber speaks from personal experience. What else could underwrite that degree of black-and-white certitude?

You are correct sir!

Years ago I took a job that promised large financial rewards. But I took the job not because of the financial rewards but because I knew that if I tweaked things just right, eventually I would be able to work from home and would thus have more time to write.

And even though I KNEW that the pull of big money could overshadow the very reason I got the job, even though I tattooed the word Foreword on my forearm so that I would never forget why I got into high finance in the first place, I STILL fell victim to the greed, the instant gratification and accolades from the owners of the company.

I was able to pull myself out from under the greed and the misplaced intentions and was able to get back to my original intention for taking the job in the first place (which is why I think all people, including Cameron, can redeem themselves).

So having hurdled that obstacle, is it easier for me to see an artist's true intention than someone else? Maybe. But I still think it's more likely that since I'm a salesman I know when I'm being sold on something that the salesman isn't selling with good intentions.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

So having hurdled that obstacle, is it easier for me to see an artist's true intention than someone else? Maybe. But I still think it's more likely that since I'm a salesman I know when I'm being sold on something that the salesman isn't selling with good intentions.

Or perhaps you're simply projecting your own negative experience onto others.
No way to know really.

But I do know one thing - if you want to make a film like Avatar then you'd better be prepared to be concerned with whether or not that film makes a profit.

And I don't think that automatically makes you less of an artist.
Not at all.


('you' in the general sense, not 'you' specifically)

 

[Chamber005]

Or perhaps you're simply projecting your own negative experience onto others.
No way to know really.

But I do know one thing - if you want to make a film like Avatar then you'd better be prepared to be concerned with whether or not that film makes a profit.

And I don't think that automatically makes you less of an artist.
Not at all.


('you' in the general sense, not 'you' specifically)

No, you (whoever you are) should not be concerned with profit. How can you possibly create something that insights change or reflects a lack of conformity if you're concerned with how it will be received? That's the job of the producer or production companies (or, the aspect of the filmmaker himself that he allocates specifically for the business of his film).

 

[Batutta]

How can you possibly create something that insights change or reflects a lack of conformity if you're concerned with how it will be received?

One does not necessarily negate the other. That's black and white thinking. It can be done. Anyway, if you step back, Avatar is not nearly the safest bet if all you want to do is make money. Cameron could have made another Terminator, Aliens or True Lies movie. Or something based on a comic or a popular novel. But an original science fiction story with ten foot tall blue aliens and a green message that turns the US military into villains is not exactly a sure thing.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

No, you (whoever you are) should not be concerned with profit. How can you possibly create something that insights change or reflects a lack of conformity if you're concerned with how it will be received? That's the job of the producer or production companies (or, the aspect of the filmmaker himself that he allocates specifically for the business of his film).

b/c you do not act in a closet by yourself. you do not make a movie that only you will watch. You must consider your audience, and if you want to be able to do it as a full-time job, you must consider the fact that it is still a business. Doesn't mean you can't love to do what you do, etc. There will be many other forces pulling at you throughout the process. But, if you don't have an audience, then it kinda defeats the entire purpose of "performing arts".

Unless, of course, you happen to have 300 million laying around and you want to make a movie just for yourself and don't care if it ever sees the light of day or recoups its investment.