For your viewing pleasure (and congrats to Poland on welcoming his first child into the world over the weekend):
(Courtesy: G4)
For your viewing pleasure (and congrats to Poland on welcoming his first child into the world over the weekend):
(Courtesy: G4)
Comments
46 responses to “Two know-it-alls debate ‘Avatar’”
Poland for the win.
Also, you can’t call something the biggest movie ever if it’s not the most attended (or even profitable) movie ever. Avatar won’t be either of those things.
Yeah, Poland’s argument is compelling…
“AVATAR is so great because it steals from SO MANY movies – it’s just brilliant! I mean look how much money its made, that means its good!”
Avatar was nothing more than a particularly pretty popcorn film for the holiday season. It pisses me off that it’s pulling toward a frontrunning position right now, what with its juvenile plot and screenplay.
Titanic–easily one of the most overrated films of all time–at least had conventional drama and historical elements-something I can understand that the Academy might fawn over.
Poland is correct about most of the world not seeing it in 3D though. In North America the majority is from 3D screenings, but it’s not going to make $700m more domestically, most of that has to come from international markets were 3D isn’t nearly as much of a factor.
Avatar made me feel a giddy sense of childlike wonder, I feeling I haven’t gotten from a movie since I don’t know when, probably since I was a child. It’s that curiosity, the inescapable draw of the unknown that put my right there with Jake Sully and made me love this film, even with its clunky dialogue and cliche turns. I knew what would happen, but I wanted to be there when it did.
David Poland may be the dumbest movie blogger on the web. I swear, I always think he couldn’t possibly be more idiotic, then he’ll top himself by writing something like, “the event [Gotham Awards] remains a very nice place to be honored… and completely meaningless when it comes to the rest of the award season,” or “…it [Avatar] is as complex as any film Charlie Kaufman has ever written.
Ok, I’m getting sick of people acting like Avatar should have had a riskier story. What studio in their right minds (let along FOX, the king of story destroyers) is going to spend $300 MILLION on a risky story? Seriously, everyone who thinks that would EVER happen needs to wake the hell up.
That being said
Poland >>>>> Devin
I think the strong political standing in the movie was a bit risky.
I think the movie itself was a huge risk. I mean, the core concept of the film (the Avatars) its not something you would expect today’s more jaded and cynical movie-goer to buy into. But people have bought into and it continue to do so. That’s pretty fucking incredible if you ask me.
I think some people just wanted to hate this movie from the moment they heard about it. And now that the vast majority of people either like it or love it, they feel like they have to make twice as much noise and bitch and moan about being outside the pack. The same thing happened last year with The Dark Knight. It’s like people think its somehow uncool to praise James Cameron for what he accomplished in this film. I can’t understand people outright not wanting to like it. And Poland is right. It took all the best elements of films before it and blended them together brilliantly. Because, let’s face it, every movie ever made really all boils down to a handful of basic stories. Why people expected Avatar to be “risky” and “wholly original” is kind of beyond me. It’s a similar reaction to the way Star Wars was received back in 1977. Most naysayers just wanted to complain that “it’s visually stunning but there’s not much story”. Look how that turned out. Whining gets you nowehere in situations like this. People are going to have to accept that this film is here to stay and it’s entered the popular conversation, like it or not. I, for one, could not be more thrilled.
Well said Kevin.
In all honest, I actally really enjoyed the film, but only for what it was worth in my eyes. And for this to be given the Top Prize by the Academy this year–if it so happens–would be asinine. This film is a grand technical achievement-but virtually nothing else. A best picture should have just about everything: Not just great visuals, but a unique story, compelling characters/performances, thoughtful dialogue.
We can’t take just one or two factors of a film that happen to be good or great and elevate the entire film to Best Picture quality. It’s foolish.
I’m not here to discredit the film or Cameron, because I liked the film. But I refuse to give it more praise than I deem worthy.
To each their own. Like many others, I found myself swept up and moved by the story, not just the visuals.
What Kevin said. In fact, I retweeted the same sentiment yesterday.
Thanks Kris. I think the thing that gets lost on a lot of American audiences is thematic storytelling. For us, it’s all about plot. But the debate over the merits of Avatar’s story reminds me of something David Hayter said to me at Austin Film Fest, when I asked him about the recent comparisons of Watchmen to the Metal Gear Solid games, which, while video games, are very cinematic.
He explained that in America, films are very plot-centric. It’s all about the bullet-points, the turns, etc. In Japan, and in a lot of the rest of the world, film is more about emotion and thematic elements than plot, which is often secondary to those things.
Avatar is very much about the emotion and the thematic and metaphorical, rather than the plot-driven. That’s something we don’t see enough of, I think.
I was more moved and visually entranced by Tom Ford’s “A Single Man.”
Everything that’s been said is true on some level, but Avatar still isn’t the best film of the year (not even really close) and wouldn’t deserve to be in the top 5 nominees in any other year, let alone the winner of best picture. And this is coming from someone who enjoyed it a lot.
I agree. I think some people these days just can’t be satisfied. I mean you have candy colored visuals to drool over for 3 hours in 3d, now you want a good story and a screenplay to go along with it too??? Did you pay 100 bucks or 10?
Its just the pretentious folks and wanna-be intellectuals who crib about such things as screenplay and nuanced film-making and the likes. Who gives a shit about those things? Avatar is the future of film-making and they will have to accept it sooner or later.
I think the problem here is people are getting up in arms about a film having the gall to be deemed the best of the year when they don’t feel it is as much.
How is this any different than any…other…year?
The Oscars are a time capsule, for better or worse. And this is the year of “Avatar.” I think “Up in the Air” is a better film. I think “A Serious Man” is a better film. But I’ll be damned if I’ll sit back and call a successful piece of political pop entertainment that has potentially shifted the landscape of the business (on a technical level) a dud unworthy of a best-of-the-year designation from an organization that has made some terrible calls in its day, just because it wasn’t willing to take too many risks from a screenplay stand point.
There is a bigger picture.
@ Kris
QFT man, Quote for fucking truth. I personally thought The Hurt Locker and The Road were better films, but Avatar is the movie of the year, in more ways than one.
Here’s my thing:
I really liked ‘Avatar’ quite a bit. Saw it twice.
But this is what is confusing to me. Allllllll throughout the year I read blogs, user reviews, & critic reviews that say, this film is bad because a,b,c,d,e,f,g, … down the line.
And while I understand what a phenomenon ‘Avatar’ is box office-wise, and sound/special effects-wise, how does it’s lack of original story, lack of iconic characters, & lack of thoughtful dialogue EXCUSE it from the same critiques that other movies get throughout the year.
Throughout the year, you read (for tons of movies), ‘ohhh, we’ve seen that story before’, bad review. I’ve read, ‘characters defined too broadly’, bad review. I’ve read ‘awful dialogue’, bad review.
Words like: trite, simplistic, monotonous, too long, etc etc. come up for all sorts of movies that wind up getting bad reviews.
So, why does a movie like ‘Avatar’ which DOESN’T have the sophistication, depth, insight, mythology, iconic charaters, development, or anywhere near an original plot NOT only get the positive review, but you got people arguing why it should get Best Picture at the Academy Awards, no less?!?!?
Again, I say this having really enjoyed myself at the theaters watching ‘Avatar’. Great fluff entertainment.
I just think there are some unbelievably hypocritical people on this board (and everywhere else) who are championing ‘Avatar’, hailing it, & again, arguing why it is Best Film of the year, and deserves Best Picture — and this is said when cynicsm is met all throughout the year for arguably better films.
I don’t intend to sound witchy. That wasn’t the intent of the tone of which I typed. For that, I am sorry. But this just seems, to me, like the classic fanboy situation here with ‘Avatar’; where the hype and blissful enjoyment has superceded coherent reasoning for what makes up a truly great film.
One thing I really admire about the film is that this is the film James Cameron wanted to make. It’s a passion project all the way through.
“One thing I really admire about the film is that this is the film James Cameron wanted to make. It’s a passion project all the way through.”
(….and this has been my biggest argument for Tarantino’s Basterds for Best Picture, or at least a nominee. But that’s another story for another day.)
I guess I’m just completely oblivious to the Avatar hype. I saw it, fairly enjoyed, but then went home and very quickly forgot about it. There’s a kind of desensitization the film industry is weilding on us with the excessive use of CGI, and even as we sit here and watch this grand technical breakthrough, I felt that this was something we’d EASILY forget a few years from now.
“… I’ll be damned if I’ll sit back and call a successful piece of political pop entertainment that has potentially shifted the landscape of the business (on a technical level) a dud unworthy of a best-of-the-year designation from an organization that has made some terrible calls in its day…”
Good point. Very, very good point.
From day one I’ve been pretty transparent about my belief that the dialog was on the nose in more than a few instances, JJ. So I know that “hypocrite” slam isn’t leveled at me.
Filmmaking is not, singularly, a writing medium. It is VISUAL STORYTELLING. And Cameron managed immersion and spectacle like no filmmaker has in years, decades, perhaps longer. That is commendable. A movie that doesn’t manage to do that but still has “trite” dialog and characters that aren’t “iconic” (incredibly subjective, that), it deserves criticism. And frankly, “Avatar” deserves a large amount of the criticism it has received on those levels, but seriously, your argument holds no water because it assumes “Avatar” is on the same playing field as the other titles you say have been chastised throughout the year.
So, I’ll just say it again:
There is a bigger picture.
(And I even voted “no” in the poll at hand. Go figure.)
Megan: Rather careless and dishonest of you to snip that quote before the point was made. That being, people are up in arms over the Academy potentially awarding the film Best Pic, when this group has made some boneheaded calls before and THEREFORE shouldn’t be held on high as a be-all, end-all. Nothing should, frankly. But the issue at hand is, people are angry that narrative risks weren’t taken, and it comes back around: Would you take narrative risks on a $300 million budget? No. Would you on a $30 million budget? Yeah. Then you get “District 9,” and an equally compelling box office take.
Everybody wins. Calm.
Lol Kris and I have not been this in sync with our opinions in a long time. Words of wisdom sir. There are only a handful of films that accomplished the level of immersion Avatar has achieved. The last time it happened was The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and before that, Star Wars.
Kris, you’re definitely right to a point. There definitely is a bigger picture and, best picture or not, Avatar will likely be regarded as the definitive film of this year for it’s huge success and it’s revolutionary visuals. But then I think of the Titanic year. And that movie, no matter how much money it made, still didn’t deserve to win best picture.
Craig: I agree. “Titanic” didn’t deserve to win Best Pic simply because it raked in cash. But “Titanic” didn’t mean what “Avatar” means to the business from a production standpoint.
Kevin: definitely agree that LotR accomplished complete immersion; I’d maintain it did it measurably better than Avatar as well, though I did have a similar feeling with Avatar.
Kris: Wasn’t Titanic also regarded as technically groundbreaking? Perhaps not on the level of Avatar, but at the time, that stuff was huge. I just don’t think they can award a film for simply being a visual game changer when there are several superior films in the race.
I don’t think Titanic was as praised for it’s technical achievements as much as everyone thought it was an homage to the golden age of Hollywood in a lot of ways.
Kris, my ‘hypocrit’ comment was certainly not aimed at you, or really anyone specifically; but a generalness I keep reading.
In fact, if you were to read any of my prior comments throughout the year or two that I visit here (daily), you’d find that I agree with you on most accounts of things.
If your opinion of ‘Avatar’ or anything else offended me (which it doesn’t at all), I simply would not visit this blog. As it is, I do visit here, because I love it. And thank you.
And I also agree with you that there is a bigger picture, here. I voted ‘No’ on the poll for does it DESERVE Best Picture.
I really liked it, but due to the aspects (which I mentioned) which were intrusive to my personal, subjective viewing pleasure, it’s not even in my Top 15 of the year.
If you ask me if ‘Avatar’ is the ‘Movie of the Year’? I would undoubtedly say, Yes.
Kris, as you know, I greatly respect your opinion on all things movies. But from the last couple days of reading this site, I’ve gauged that you think it is a 2-film race, Avatar vs. Up in the Air. Do you really think The Hurt Locker is out of the question? I feel like you aren’t giving the film it’s proper due because you didn’t flip for it, whereas I may be overestimating its chances because I’m blinded by my love for it. I understand why Avatar will be nommed for BP and why it could very well win, especially over a movie that nobody really saw like THL. Bigelow keeps winning all the critics awards but is that because she’s a woman working outside her so-called comfort zone? I think if movies got what they deserved, THL would win BP and Cameron would win Best Director, but what are the chances of things breaking that way?
“Megan: Rather careless and dishonest of you to snip that quote before the point was made.”
Well gee, Kris, just because a particular part of what you said was salient to me didn’t mean that I ignored everything else you had to say.
Surely there is a bigger picture. And the Academy certainly shouldn’t be the end-all of determining what a good film is. But unforunately, it is, almost in the same way a religion dictates what is and isn’t. It’s been around forever, and people will always hold its say as the final say, even if they know it’s garbage. They’ll question it, but they know they’ve been defeated.
That being said, in my view, a good film worthy of the highest praise–whether it’s by the Academy or something else–is one that works on a number of different levels. Avatar worked on a technical level and virtually nothing else.
Or maybe I just don’t agree that this film changed anything. I honestly believe we will all forget about this film in a number of years you could count on one hand. Then again, people said the same thing about the Beatles. So who knows…
Megan: I think there is certainly a possibility that this film won’t age well, but it won’t be forgotten entirely. It’s gross and the number of people who have seen it will assure that. However, I must disagree with the people saying that it’s the Star Wars of this generation. Sure, they both create their own worlds, and neither has a script that exactly screams originality, but Star Wars had some of the most memorable characters ever. Who can forget the first time that Darth Vader made an appearance? Who can forget Han Solo, or bitchy little Luke? Most of Avatar’s characters are one dimensional, cardboard cut-outs that I’ve already forgotten. If there is a Star Wars of this generation, it’s LotR.
I agree pretty much with everything you’ve got there, Craig. I believe there can exist truly good films that lack originality in terms of story line. Hell, even LOTR’s core premise isn’t all that unique. But what a good film depends on is how it builds from there. Fantastic characters, memorable dialogue….something that makes the experience holistic–great for the eyes AND the mind.
But in terms of Avatar, I’m just beating a dead horse.
And as a sidenote, I think the very fact that we’re having this kind of conversation really speaks volumes about the authority of the Academy. Is it right or fair? No, but there you have it. That’s all I’m sayin’.
Exactly, Craig. I don’t dismiss the thought/idea/feeling of being immersed in ‘Avatar’. I don’t dismiss thousands, if not millions, really liking it. I did to a degree, as well.
But a ‘Star Wars ‘or a ‘Jaws’ or a ‘LOTR’ … those films were Classics with a capital “C”.
Unique blockbuster hits with characters of interest/dimension/something huge at stake. There was complexity to the plot, unpredictability, & iconic musical scores.
Other than the production design, sound design, special effects, & immersion of Pandora, I wasn’t all that jazzed about the rest.
Jake Sully is really not that compelling of a hero, nor is Neytiri (though, very well acted by Saldana). And no one else registered for me from ‘Avatar’ very much, either.
As mentioned, it’s still good, & it’s the Motion Picture of the Year for a plethera of reasons. Just not the best for me.
Titanic deserved the Oscar for best picture. It was a great movie epic that was an involving and moving experience. I saw it 7 times in a theater.
At this point Ive only seen Avatar once and Im still having a hard time seperating the story from the 3-D. I thought the 3-D was stunningly great! I really got into it an hr in to its running time but need to see it again to make a call on its merits as a best picture winner. While I really liked it I don’ think it was better than Cameron’s Aliens.
Chuck
7 times? I can’t imagine a scenario where I would think that was reasonable, let alone for a film as tepid as Titanic.
Sneider: I think Hurt Locker is on the outside looking in, yes. The money thing hurts it. It’s a clear case of a critics’ fave remaining just that, in my view.
I am one who saw ‘Titanic’ 11 times in the theaters. Granted, I was 16 at thetime and in love. The love story (along with the granduer of it all,obviously) swept me away.
And I agree that ‘The Hurt Locker’ is looking in, not IN.
I think ‘Avatar’, ‘Up in the Air’, and yes, ‘Inglourious Basterds (particularly) are the 3 for the win. And I get the feeling there is a widespread like/love/appreciation for IB. Detractors, sure. But there may be an underground surge for it, too.
I think IB has a chance for sure. And all of these films have detractors, but I think Avatar is going to miss/be ranked low on a lot of lists, while I think IB will be top 3 all over the place with a healthy amount of number one votes.
Craig said…
7 times? I can’t imagine a scenario where I would think that was reasonable, let alone for a film as tepid as Titanic.
Im married and my wife loved Titanic so she wanted to keep going back. I had no problem viewing that film so many times as its my type of film. A great hollywood epic. Its my favorite movie in the last 15 years.
Chuck
Yeah, I’d say TITANIC is still in my Top 5 of the last 15 years.
Even if something was one of my favorite films ever AND significantly greater on the big screen than anywhere else (Lord of the Rings, for example), I still wouldn’t go see it in theaters more than 2 or maybe 3 times. Seems like a complete waste when there are so many movies out.
Well again, I was 16, and in love (or so I thought at the time). The movie house was right down the street. I basically did nothing else for 2 months but eat, sleep, go to school, run track, and go to see ‘Titanic’.
I didn’t make it all the way through Titanic. As I left my mom told me it was almost to the nude scene and I told her I didn’t care anymore, I wasn’t watching any more of that ‘film’. I cannot believe that it beat LA Confidential for best film ’97.
I love Aliens and T2 and Abyss, but the Oscars will officially mean nothing if Avatar wins Best Picture/Director. It should win hands down in the tech dept but if it wins Best Picture and Director they might as well give it Best Screenplay as well since it means they obviously didn’t watch any of the other contenders. Basterds completely deserves the nomination, if not the win, and I don’t even like Tarantino that much.
Please, please stop suggesting Avatar is anything like Star Wars. Please. 20 years from now if anyone even remembers Blue Pocahontas THEN you can compare it to Star Wars. Even then it will still be a bad and unfair comparison. If you want a great speculative movie to compare Avatar to then compare it to Mike Judge’s Idiocracy.