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

Sorry... got to add another thought to this... to expand a bit... I think the female lead character is the personification of what almost every woman wants to be, and every man wants in a woman... and the male lead is the personification of what almost every man wants to be, and what every woman wants in a man.*

The woman is at once strong, capable, beautiful, displays leadership while having respect and commanding respect. The man is strong, capable, determined, displays leadership but must earn respect by overcoming several handicaps... which is what pulls the male audience in to that character through the story. The most obvious handicap is for some a literal handicap and for others a metaphor... a reason to root for the underdog.

I'm so glad they didn't use too many well-known actors for this. The lead could have easily been Mark Wahlberg or Matt Damon... but I think that would have only taken away from the "purity" of the story. To stay lost in the "cartoon" world it was wise to pass on a well-known celebrity voice.

*(intentionally leaving out sexuality here, but I'd wager that the same argument still works in opposite gender)
 
MattinSTL said:
Sorry... got to add another thought to this... to expand a bit... I think the female lead character is the personification of what almost every woman wants to be, and every man wants in a woman... and the male lead is the personification of what almost every man wants to be, and what every woman wants in a man.*

The woman is at once strong, capable, beautiful, displays leadership while having respect and commanding respect. The man is strong, capable, determined, displays leadership but must earn respect by overcoming several handicaps... which is what pulls the male audience in to that character through the story. The most obvious handicap is for some a literal handicap and for others a metaphor... a reason to root for the underdog.

I'm so glad they didn't use too many well-known actors for this. The lead could have easily been Mark Wahlberg or Matt Damon... but I think that would have only taken away from the "purity" of the story. To stay lost in the "cartoon" world it was wise to pass on a well-known celebrity voice.

*(intentionally leaving out sexuality here, but I'd wager that the same argument still works in opposite gender)
Click to expand...

I think between this film and Titanic it's certainly proven that archetypal stories work for a reason. Audiences don't place as much stock in "originality" as other artists do. They just want a story to pull them along emotionally and these archetypal stories work because they always have. Cameron seems to believe in adhering to these archetypal stories as much as possible, and so he gets pilloried for it. But obviously most people don't care. One thing that drives me crazy is when people remake a successful film, and decide to change it for no other reason than to make it different. The original was a success for a reason, because the parts work together effectively, and when you rearrange the parts you reduce its effectiveness. When you tell these archetypal stories, the more you rearrange the parts, the less effective that archetype becomes. That Cameron didn't need to tell one of these stories is certainly true, but since he chose to go down this well trodden road, I respect that he just told a version of this story cleanly.
 
Batutta said:
I think between this film and Titanic it's certainly proven that archetypal stories work for a reason. Audiences don't place as much stock in "originality" as other artists do. They just want a story to pull them along emotionally and these archetypal stories work because they always have. Cameron seems to believe in adhering to these archetypal stories as much as possible, and so he gets pilloried for it. But obviously most people don't care. One thing that drives me crazy is when people remake a successful film, and decide to change it for no other reason than to make it different. The original was a success for a reason, because the parts work together effectively, and when you rearrange the parts you reduce its effectiveness. When you tell these archetypal stories, the more you rearrange the parts, the less effective that archetype becomes. That Cameron didn't need to tell one of these stories is certainly true, but since he chose to go down this well trodden road, I respect that he just told a version of this story cleanly.
Click to expand...

True true

and as the adage goes:

It's not what's been done, but how one does it.
 
I still look at the "simplicity" of the story as a plus in this particular case... at least for me... I'm just in awe that such a massive undertaking has such a clean and precise execution.... The scale of what the entire process must have been like is mind-boggling for this film... yet, the execution was so clean, and crisp without really very much fat. I thought it spoke well of the film, rather than against it. 2 cents.

later,
Jason
 
Batutta said:
One thing that drives me crazy is when people remake a successful film, and decide to change it for no other reason than to make it different. The original was a success for a reason, because the parts work together effectively, and when you rearrange the parts you reduce its effectiveness. When you tell these archetypal stories, the more you rearrange the parts, the less effective that archetype becomes.
Click to expand...

Well, or you get Psycho and Psycho remake. They tried NOT to change anything, and it still didn't work.

I've directed "cliche" stories before, but the one thing they've taught me is that there's a difference between "copying" how it was done before, vs. "making the same choice" as previous artists have in spite of them.
 
Gohanto said:
Well, or you get Psycho and Psycho remake. They tried NOT to change anything, and it still didn't work.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that great films shouldn't be remade in the first place...However, Psycho took it to the extreme and copied it shot for shot, which was pointless. You can go too far in either direction.
 
Huy Vu said:
A great review from the guy who did the Phantom Menace review.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA&feature=channel

My favorite quote from the review "Despite all the time and efforts to make this movie in 3d, the characters and the story are still stuck in one-dimension."
Click to expand...


This guy's brilliant... all valid points... the specific things that annoyed him annoyed me (big knife, blatant redneck hoosiers in the military, over-embellished characters guaranteed to evoke hatred, bashed over the head with "messages" etc.) I even thought about the Disney Eyes when I was watching the movie... the last movie to really make me feel this way about an animated character was Aladdin in 1992... and ironically... this guy makes direct reference to that movie visually... when talking about Disney Eyes, but it was the princess in Aladdin that got me thinking about an ideal, non-existent woman... just like the "princess" of Avatar got me thinking the same thing.

Still... in light of all that... I disagree with his assessment that turning movies into an experience is as he assumes. It's not going to take filmmaking in a new bad direction... where all people care about is an experience and NOT story... or quality filmmaking overall... because just like with ANY new technology... everyone's taste very quickly adapts, and what was exceptional becomes expectation, and the only thing that will always be timeless is story... but for now I see nothing wrong with accepting that it's a pretty simple story with simple characters presented in an amazing way.

If this guy has been to Disney World then he'd know that the year "alien encounter" opened it had some of the longest lines in the whole park... and a year or two later it seems to serve little more purpose then getting you into AC for a cool-down (which you won't have to wait in line for either... pick a seat, any seat.)

Perception is everything... why not enjoy it as experience with the fresh perception that you won't have for long.

Anyway... yes, this guy is spot on... but it's still a pretty good time.
 
MattinSTL said:
The woman is at once strong, capable, beautiful, displays leadership while having respect and commanding respect.

The man is strong, capable, determined, displays leadership but must earn respect by overcoming several handicaps...
Click to expand...

Sounds much like me and my old lady watching me washing the dishes :D

Frank
 
I watched it. Not as much fun as the TPM review, mostly because AVATAR is nowhere near as grossly incompetent as that film was. It's more about why the movie works so well and why we're idiots for falling for it.
 
Today, after 45 days it hit $2.039 billion and is at $594.5M domestic, I think Titanic is barley over $600M domestic.
 
Mark Harris said:
Who looks three posts up?

Okay, bring on the N0OB!
Click to expand...

Mark:

LikeANoobie.jpg



- Mikko
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top