78 réponses à ce sujet

[Noilly Prat]

I enjoyed it all right enough, but purely on a bubblegum entertainment, watching-stuff-get-blown-up kind of level. Which is about par for the course for any James Cameron movie, I suppose. Sometimes I manage to enjoy his movies, as with Terminator 2 and The Abyss, and sometimes not (I actually thought Aliens was pretty terrible). Avatar comes up somewhere in the middle for me.



As an environmentalist film, or anti-imperialist film, it's incredibly shallow. But I didn't think it was any more shallow in this regard than District 9, another film I enjoyed purely on a bubblegum, Iron Man-blowing-dudes-up sort of level.



Don't get me wrong, I'm all for big budget, major studio films incorporating important messages into their stories, I just wish there were more that did it well.

[Giantevilhead]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Giantevilhead wrote...

Avatar 2 will probably be a good movie since James Cameron won't be spending all his time perfecting the special effect and will actually work on the script. We might even get something close to the quality of Terminator or Aliens.

Cameron had been thinking about Avatar for the last decade, if that isn't enough time to create an interesting narrative, I don't know what will be. Sure, a lot of that time was spent trying to get the technology going, but I would imagine he was also thinking about the story (though I really wouldn't be surprised if that never crossed his mind). I just don't think he's very good at telling a story or getting good performances out of his actors, or at least he isn't at this point in his life.

Except that's not how movie making works. Scripts get reworked dozens of times before they're shot.

The original Avatar script has been floating out there for a long time and it's very different than the movie. The movie was significantly streamlined and dumbed down. In the original script:
You get to see earth.
There are more human characters.
They explain the reason why the RDA has been trying to improve relations with the Na'vi. It's because interstellar travel is extremely expensive and the RDA want to use the Na'vi as workers to mine and refine the unobtainium. 
The RDA isn't completely evil. There are government officials there to ensure that RDA follows all the rules. Also, RDA is not nearly as powerful as they are in the movie due to the expense of interstellar travel.
It takes a long time for Avatar drivers to learn how to control their Avatar. They develop addictions to being linked with the Avatars. Avatar driviers "going native" is actually a big problem so the main character isn't the first person to join the Na'vi.
People are aware of the potential usefulness of all the biodiversity on Pandora. They've found stuff that have anti-viral properties and RDA is actually bringing the local flora and fauna back to earth for research.
The main character's reaction to Pandora is different. Since he's never seen a forest, he's afraid of Pandora instead of amazed by it.
The main character doesn't become the leader of the Na'vi. The Na'vi gathered to attack the humans by themselves after hometree was destroyed. The main character helped the Na'vi a lot but he wasn't really instrumental in their victory.
There are a ton of other differences too that add more to the story and character development.

Modifié par Giantevilhead, 08 mars 2010 - 11:55 .

[Twitchmonkey]

And this is relevant how? Of course the script had rewrites, but there was a great deal of time to do those rewrites and ultimately come to a strong final draft, which is not what we saw with Avatar it felt like a copied and pasted cliche that brought little to no unique vision. The fact that it had to be rewritten has very little relevance, I'm sure Avatar 2 will need rewrites too, but there won't be another decade to make those rewrites and we didn't get a strong showing when there was.

[Gabey5]

its a popcorn flick get over it....

[Randomname1212]

Yeah I too think that Poca... err... Avatar is overrated.

[Giantevilhead]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

And this is relevant how? Of course the script had rewrites, but there was a great deal of time to do those rewrites and ultimately come to a strong final draft, which is not what we saw with Avatar it felt like a copied and pasted cliche that brought little to no unique vision. The fact that it had to be rewritten has very little relevance, I'm sure Avatar 2 will need rewrites too, but there won't be another decade to make those rewrites and we didn't get a strong showing when there was.

It's relevant if you know anything about film making. Scripts have to be changed during the making of the film to accommodate for dozens of different factors ranging from casting changes to limitations in CG technology to ensuring the profitability of the film.

What you fail to understand is what I've been saying for a while, Avatar was meant to prove the viability of 3D films. Cameron was already taking a big risk with the 3D technology, he couldn't afford to take a risk with the story. Cliches are often used not because the writers have run out of ideas but because cliches work. Avatar was made in such a way that it would attract the most viewers and looking at the box office, it has succeeded.

You can complain all you want about the story but you can't deny that it attracts huge audiences and that's because it was made to do that. The story is one of the most cliched takes on the monomyth. The Na'vi are designed to be sympathetic with those big puppy dog eyes, feline features, and they even managed to sexualize them. The bad guys were made to be obviously evil in both their intentions and their appearance. Everything in the film was made to elicit base emotional reactions from the audience so that they would watch it again. Cameron designed the movie not to tell a good story but to make the huge amount of money that it has made.

Now that Cameron has proven the viability of 3D movies, which will make the technology cheaper and more common, he and other directors can make 3D movies that focus more on story and characters rather than getting a big audience. He can take risks with the story now that he has proven that using the technology itself is not a risk.

[Twitchmonkey]

Well if your point is that Avatar is doing well in terms of revenue, I can't argue with that. Release a visual spectacle with a boatload of marketing behind it and you'll make some money, no argument there.



Your suggestion that to make a viable 3d film that is a financial success he had to create an utterly shallow and tired clone of numerous other films to be ludicrous, however. Now if it was being suggested that Avatar should be an art house flick about the inevitability of death and finding meaning in a cold, uncaring universe, then yes, I could agree that this is not a good risk for making a big budget blockbuster. That isn't the issue here, however, the issue is that Cameron just didn't seem to try. There is just no originality here, even within the structure of the monomyth there are no attempts to do anything new.



I suppose you'd have some sort of a leg to stand on if we're going to take the view that audiences simply won't accept something that isn't utterly ordinary, but that's a bit cynical even for me. There are risks you can and cannot afford to take for this sort of film, Cameron took none, leaving the audience with an utterly bland experience. How this will change with Avatar 2, I'm still not clear on your position. If this is what made the most money here, why not just do the same sort of thing with the sequel? How does the cost of the technology change anything if it's just a matter of making the most money possible? You can make a movie for $5 million or $500 million, if your focus is on doing the least amount of work possible to make the most amount of money, the result will be the same.



In general I just find your assertion that the plot must be bad for a movie to succeed technically to be quite bizarre, I doubt he was Cameron was slaving away in Maya sculpting these scenes, he could have invested the time to make a more engaging story, he didn't do that because he didn't have to I suppose, Avatar made a boatload of cash, and so will Avatar 2, they just shouldn't be considered good films for that reason.

[Seraosha]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Seraosha wrote...

Avatar is a masterwork of epic film making. Maybe it isn't the most original story you've ever seen, but it sure takes you on a rollercoaster ride of emotions as you follow it through and treats you to the delights of the best special effects ever seen on the big screen. In all things, Avatar was top notch and thoroughly deserving of the status of most successful film of all time.

I don't think good special effects quite have the emotional punch you attribute to them. They tantalize the eyes and keep you engaged visually, and they certainly did their part in doing so, the artists deserve all the accolades possible. However, unless the performances are good and the narrative is strong, I really don't see how you can become emotionally engaged. Gran Turismo 4 is a very pretty game, but I don't have to sit down and have a cry when I crash my car, a game with a well-crafted story and characters like Heavy Rain is much more effective in that area.

But Avatar is emotionally engaging. I don't buy into this haughtiness others seem to have about the story. It's a rip roaring morality tale that gently hoists you over to the side of the main protagonists even as it makes broad and gentle points about Imperialism, Environmentalism etc.

I'm really not convinced at all that the reason people were going back for seconds was to gawk at the incredible graphic detail or really immerse themselves in 3D once more. All of that special effects brilliance would be meaningless without a compelling tale to go alongside it, and that's something Cameron delivered in emphatic style.

[Twitchmonkey]

Seraosha wrote...
But Avatar is emotionally engaging. I don't buy into this haughtiness others seem to have about the story. It's a rip roaring morality tale that gently hoists you over to the side of the main protagonists even as it makes broad and gentle points about Imperialism, Environmentalism etc.

I'm really not convinced at all that the reason people were going back for seconds was to gawk at the incredible graphic detail or really immerse themselves in 3D once more. All of that special effects brilliance would be meaningless without a compelling tale to go alongside it, and that's something Cameron delivered in emphatic style.

The only reason I could give for seeing Avatar a second time is temporary psychosis, but I'm not a doctor.

The reason I didn't feel emotionally engaged (and the reason just about everyone else I've spoken to hasn't) is because the characters are completely two-dimensional, polarized, and in most cases, poorly-acted. There is a good guy and a bad guy, no gray area, no nuanced, your feelings about these characters are heavy-handidly shoved at you. The same goes for its imperialist and environmentalist themes. As for the acting, while the Na'vi were generally capably acted, and Zoe Saldana really does bring her A-game for her role, the humans could've been portrayed better by monkeys, and not the smart ones. Sully in particular really lacks any personality whatsoever, but even Sigourney Weaver seems to be phoning it in, probably because she's struggling just as much to care about her character as we are.

[Giantevilhead]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Well if your point is that Avatar is doing well in terms of revenue, I can't argue with that. Release a visual spectacle with a boatload of marketing behind it and you'll make some money, no argument there.

Your suggestion that to make a viable 3d film that is a financial success he had to create an utterly shallow and tired clone of numerous other films to be ludicrous, however. Now if it was being suggested that Avatar should be an art house flick about the inevitability of death and finding meaning in a cold, uncaring universe, then yes, I could agree that this is not a good risk for making a big budget blockbuster. That isn't the issue here, however, the issue is that Cameron just didn't seem to try. There is just no originality here, even within the structure of the monomyth there are no attempts to do anything new.

I suppose you'd have some sort of a leg to stand on if we're going to take the view that audiences simply won't accept something that isn't utterly ordinary, but that's a bit cynical even for me. There are risks you can and cannot afford to take for this sort of film, Cameron took none, leaving the audience with an utterly bland experience. How this will change with Avatar 2, I'm still not clear on your position. If this is what made the most money here, why not just do the same sort of thing with the sequel? How does the cost of the technology change anything if it's just a matter of making the most money possible? You can make a movie for $5 million or $500 million, if your focus is on doing the least amount of work possible to make the most amount of money, the result will be the same.

In general I just find your assertion that the plot must be bad for a movie to succeed technically to be quite bizarre, I doubt he was Cameron was slaving away in Maya sculpting these scenes, he could have invested the time to make a more engaging story, he didn't do that because he didn't have to I suppose, Avatar made a boatload of cash, and so will Avatar 2, they just shouldn't be considered good films for that reason.

My point is that there is a certain amount of risk that is acceptable to James Cameron and the studios when they make a movie. Since the fact that Avatar was a 3D movie is a big risk, they were unwilling to take risks with the story. While making money is a goal of all movies, it is significantly more important for this movie because it was created to promote a new technology. James Cameron's goal was to prove that 3D movies can make money so that movie studios will no longer view making a movie 3D as a risk, which will allow film makers to make 3D movies and take risks with other things like the story and characters. Let's say that the studios are willing to take 10 units of risk for a $300 million movie. Before Avatar, they considered 3D movies to be worth 8 or 9 units of risk, which only leaves 1 or 2 units of risk for other things like story, character, setting, etc. After Avatar came out, it's likely that the studios' reviews on the risk of 3D movies will change. They will no longer think that it's worth 8 or 9 units of risk, instead they'll probably think it's worth 5 or 6 units of risk, which allows more risk in other areas of the movie.

Also, I never said that the plot had to be bad for the movie to succeed. I said that the plot, along with a ton of other things in Avatar, were designed to attract the largest audience. The fact that it was stupid and cliche was simply a "side effect" just like how the fact that Big Macs are extremely unhealthy is a merely side effect of what makes it popular.

[Andarthiel_Demigod]

Busomjack wrote...

Giantevilhead wrote...

The whole point of the movie was to test the viability of 3D movies, not to tell a good story. It's like how Crysis was basically made to advance the boundaries of computer graphics and every reviewer gave it a 9 out of 10 despite the fact that the gameplay and story were pretty generic.

Yeah, I always wondered what the big deal was about Crysis too.  I guess I'm just not the kind of person who needs more than just good graphics to enjoy something.

I also have the same view "Need more than fanc graphics to enjoy something" that's why I hated Crysis(which was a tech demo to be fair) but I really loved Avatar for some reason. Maybe it's just that it is such a good adventure film and good animation always impresses me(and inspires too) Hell, I was almost crying in some moments. I don't know what in particular draws me to it, I guess it's just how well the art was designed. Plus it's always good to see another Aussie actor stepping up(after Heath's tragedy).

[Twitchmonkey]

Giantevilhead wrote...

My point is that there is a certain amount of risk that is acceptable to James Cameron and the studios when they make a movie. Since the fact that Avatar was a 3D movie is a big risk, they were unwilling to take risks with the story. While making money is a goal of all movies, it is significantly more important for this movie because it was created to promote a new technology. James Cameron's goal was to prove that 3D movies can make money so that movie studios will no longer view making a movie 3D as a risk, which will allow film makers to make 3D movies and take risks with other things like the story and characters. Let's say that the studios are willing to take 10 units of risk for a $300 million movie. Before Avatar, they considered 3D movies to be worth 8 or 9 units of risk, which only leaves 1 or 2 units of risk for other things like story, character, setting, etc. After Avatar came out, it's likely that the studios' reviews on the risk of 3D movies will change. They will no longer think that it's worth 8 or 9 units of risk, instead they'll probably think it's worth 5 or 6 units of risk, which allows more risk in other areas of the movie.

Firstly I really see the 3d aspect as more of a selling point than a risk. That was the first thing that you heard in Avatar's marketing drive, the 3d aspect being hyped up, without that Avatar wouldn't have had its big gimmick. This was their ticket to making big money, not something they seemed at all nervous or unsure of. Secondly, I find the term risk in relation to story to not be entirely appropriate, as I said, no one was expecting Avatar to be challenging or philosophical, but it simply seemed to lack any thought or depth, these things aren't risks, they're simply part of what makes a story good. I don't think there is any significant risk to making your antagonists seem human, you have to still make them evil if you don't want your audience to have to think, but the vast polarization of Avatar is just lazy filmmaking. A good narrative should be able to make that line clear enough without forcing it down your throat.

Also, I never said that the plot had to be bad for the movie to succeed. I said that the plot, along with a ton of other things in Avatar, were designed to attract the largest audience. The fact that it was stupid and cliche was simply a "side effect" just like how the fact that Big Macs are extremely unhealthy is a merely side effect of what makes it popular.

Not sure that analogy quite works unless you're willing to say that audiences won't go to see a film that doesn't just blatantly tell them what to think, again, I'm just not that cynical. Mainstream audiences may not be that smart, but them are not buffoons, and I think they can accept a story that has a reasonable amount of nuance.

Plus it's always good to see another Aussie actor stepping up(after Heath's tragedy).

You did not just compare Sam Worthington to Heath Ledger. You couldn't have. While I still say Mark Hamill is the quintessential Joker, Heath showed that he was as real actor in The Dark Knight. Worthington, on the other hand, is awful, he has no charisma or talent whatsoever, he's the Keanu Reeves for the new generation. Leave my forum now, just go, I'll leave your things out on the lawn.

Modifié par Twitchmonkey, 09 mars 2010 - 12:13 .

[Andarthiel_Demigod]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Plus it's always good to see another Aussie actor stepping up(after Heath's tragedy).

You did not just compare Sam Worthington to Heath Ledger. You couldn't have. While I still say Mark Hamill is the quintessential Joker, Heath showed that he was as real actor in The Dark Knight. Worthington, on the other hand, is awful, he has no charisma or talent whatsoever, he's the Keanu Reeves for the new generation. Leave my forum now, just go, I'll leave your things out on the lawn.

Of course, he's not as good as Heath but what I was trying to say is that we need more Australian actors(and writers, directors etc.) to break through into the American dominated mainstream. Who knows maybe they can change my opinion on Hollywood films.

[Twitchmonkey]

Andarthiel_Demigod wrote...

Of course, he's not as good as Heath but what I was trying to say is that we need more Australian actors(and writers, directors etc.) to break through into the American dominated mainstream. Who knows maybe they can change my opinion on Hollywood films.

We need more Australian actors like Worthington like we need more German politicians like Hitler.

Okay that's not fair, but I would hope that you would want your country to represented by good actors instead of talentless hacks like him.

[Mr.Skar]

I still don't see what all the fuss is about Sam Worthington. Waiting for that role that will change my mind about him. Off topic, check out Tom Hardy in Bronson. Absolutely amazing performance. We need to see more of that guy.

[Giantevilhead]

[quote]Twitchmonkey wrote...

[quote]Giantevilhead wrote...

My point is that there is a certain amount of risk that is acceptable to James Cameron and the studios when they make a movie. Since the fact that Avatar was a 3D movie is a big risk, they were unwilling to take risks with the story. While making money is a goal of all movies, it is significantly more important for this movie because it was created to promote a new technology. James Cameron's goal was to prove that 3D movies can make money so that movie studios will no longer view making a movie 3D as a risk, which will allow film makers to make 3D movies and take risks with other things like the story and characters. Let's say that the studios are willing to take 10 units of risk for a $300 million movie. Before Avatar, they considered 3D movies to be worth 8 or 9 units of risk, which only leaves 1 or 2 units of risk for other things like story, character, setting, etc. After Avatar came out, it's likely that the studios' reviews on the risk of 3D movies will change. They will no longer think that it's worth 8 or 9 units of risk, instead they'll probably think it's worth 5 or 6 units of risk, which allows more risk in other areas of the movie.[/quote]

Firstly I really see the 3d aspect as more of a selling point than a risk. That was the first thing that you heard in Avatar's marketing drive, the 3d aspect being hyped up, without that Avatar wouldn't have had its big gimmick. This was their ticket to making big money, not something they seemed at all nervous or unsure of. Secondly, I find the term risk in relation to story to not be entirely appropriate, as I said, no one was expecting Avatar to be challenging or philosophical, but it simply seemed to lack any thought or depth, these things aren't risks, they're simply part of what makes a story good. I don't think there is any significant risk to making your antagonists seem human, you have to still make them evil if you don't want your audience to have to think, but the vast polarization of Avatar is just lazy filmmaking. A good narrative should be able to make that line clear enough without forcing it down your throat.[/quote]
You didn't sink $250 to $300 million into the production of this movie and $150 to $200 million in advertisement. Not to mention the fact that previous attempts to make full length 3D movies with photo-realistic CG haven't exactly been very successful.

As for the risk involved in making the story more complex, the risk is not that they'll lose money on the film, the risk is that they won't make enough money to prove the viability of 3D movies. Avatar was made with the intention of alleviating the studios' fears of letting directors use 3D technology. The more money Avatar makes, the more confident that the studios will be in letting writers and directors do more with 3D movies. James Cameron did something similar with Terminator 2 and $100 million movies. Even though T2 was a much better movie than Avatar, it was still dumbed down and made more kid friendly to prove the viability of big budget $100 million movies.

[quote][quote]
Also, I never said that the plot had to be bad for the movie to succeed. I said that the plot, along with a ton of other things in Avatar, were designed to attract the largest audience. The fact that it was stupid and cliche was simply a "side effect" just like how the fact that Big Macs are extremely unhealthy is a merely side effect of what makes it popular.[/quote]

Not sure that analogy quite works unless you're willing to say that audiences won't go to see a film that doesn't just blatantly tell them what to think, again, I'm just not that cynical. Mainstream audiences may not be that smart, but them are not buffoons, and I think they can accept a story that has a reasonable amount of nuance.
[/quote][/quote]
I'm not saying that audiences won't go see movies with complex stories and nuanced performances, I'm saying that fewer people will go see those kinds of movies.

As I mentioned before, cliches are often used not because writers are out of ideas but because cliches work. Think of laugh tracks for example. Everyone says that they hate laugh tracks and there are even actors who refuse to work on shows that have laugh tracks. However, research has consistently shown that people rate jokes and sitcoms as funnier when they are accompanied by laugh tracks. That's why even some good comedy shows have laugh tracks.

The same principle was used with Avatar. Cameron already had a story that was more complex and had more interesting characters but he intentionally dumbed it down so that more people would go see the movie.

Modifié par Giantevilhead, 09 mars 2010 - 01:33 .

[Twitchmonkey]

Giantevilhead wrote...
You didn't sink $250 to $300 million into the production of this movie and $150 to $200 million in advertisement. Not to mention the fact that previous attempts to make full length 3D movies with photo-realistic CG haven't exactly been very successful.

As for the risk involved in making the story more complex, the risk is not that they'll lose money on the film, the risk is that they won't make enough money to prove the viability of 3D movies. Avatar was made with the intention of alleviating the studios' fears of letting directors use 3D technology. The more money Avatar makes, the more confident that the studios will be in letting writers and directors do more with 3D movies. James Cameron did something similar with Terminator 2 and $100 million movies. Even though T2 was a much better movie than Avatar, it was still dumbed down and made more kid friendly to prove the viability of big budget $100 million movies.

My point was that the 3d was a big part of why it made the profit it made, it wasn't an attempt to create some revolution in filmmaking at the risk of losing money vs a traditional film, it was an effort to make more money. It would have been just as big of a risk not going for 3d as that could have potentially lead to smaller sales figures.

I'm not saying that audiences won't go see movies with complex stories and nuanced performances, I'm saying that fewer people will go see those kinds of movies.

As I mentioned before, cliches are often used not because writers are out of ideas but because cliches work. Think of laugh tracks for example. Everyone says that they hate laugh tracks and there are even actors who refuse to work on shows that have laugh tracks. However, research has consistently shown that people rate jokes and sitcoms as funnier when they are accompanied by laugh tracks. That's why even some good comedy shows have laugh tracks.

The same principle was used with Avatar. Cameron already had a story that was more complex and had more interesting characters but he intentionally dumbed it down so that more people would go see the movie.

You say that you aren't saying that audiences won't see movies with complex stories, but then you say that, not really sure where you're coming from here. Again, it's not a matter of complex or stupid, it's a matter of somewhat interesting or utterly bland. You don't have to confuse the average audience to produce a stronger narrative than Avatar did. I would have accepted something that was entirely adequate, audiences have grown to embrace adequacy, the problem with Avatar's story is that it was insultingly bad. It was like the movie version of a simple folk song used to soothe elderly dementia patients. Avatar got the box office numbers it got because the visuals were so good, not because the story was something people identified with. Would a better constructed story have resulted in a differing level of success? We'll never know, I suspect that if handled well, we'd see just as many high-quality moviegoers coming in to replace the lowest common denominator it would have lost, and the movie would have had a better chance to stand up to criticism and age.

If we're approaching this from the angle of trying to divine how Avatar 2 will be handled, however, which is what I think the initial issue was, we still have to deal with your theory that the simplicity of Avatar's sotry was what brought people to the theaters, while we can have this debate, this view has its merits, and it seems to be what Cameron thinks as well, so I still don't see why they wouldn't repeat what worked with the first. Why take a risk when using the same formula results in great box office numbers? You don't really believe that James Cameron has artistic integrity do you? It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

[Seraosha]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Seraosha wrote...
But Avatar is emotionally engaging. I don't buy into this haughtiness others seem to have about the story. It's a rip roaring morality tale that gently hoists you over to the side of the main protagonists even as it makes broad and gentle points about Imperialism, Environmentalism etc.

I'm really not convinced at all that the reason people were going back for seconds was to gawk at the incredible graphic detail or really immerse themselves in 3D once more. All of that special effects brilliance would be meaningless without a compelling tale to go alongside it, and that's something Cameron delivered in emphatic style.

The reason I didn't feel emotionally engaged (and the reason just about everyone else I've spoken to hasn't) is because the characters are completely two-dimensional, polarized, and in most cases, poorly-acted. There is a good guy and a bad guy, no gray area, no nuanced, your feelings about these characters are heavy-handidly shoved at you. The same goes for its imperialist and environmentalist themes.

Why over complicate things? If you want to go watch an amazing, intelligent cult classic, go watch Brick or something. Avatar didn't and doesn't need to be anything more than it is. Which is a simple, yet incredibly well done, fable and morality tale.

It's a pity you didn't like it, but each to their own. I do hope you go off and find an amazing film to watch to ease your pain though. Better that than spend any more time barracking this thread.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Giantevilhead wrote...

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Giantevilhead wrote...

My point is that there is a certain amount of risk that is acceptable to James Cameron and the studios when they make a movie. Since the fact that Avatar was a 3D movie is a big risk, they were unwilling to take risks with the story. While making money is a goal of all movies, it is significantly more important for this movie because it was created to promote a new technology. James Cameron's goal was to prove that 3D movies can make money so that movie studios will no longer view making a movie 3D as a risk, which will allow film makers to make 3D movies and take risks with other things like the story and characters. Let's say that the studios are willing to take 10 units of risk for a $300 million movie. Before Avatar, they considered 3D movies to be worth 8 or 9 units of risk, which only leaves 1 or 2 units of risk for other things like story, character, setting, etc. After Avatar came out, it's likely that the studios' reviews on the risk of 3D movies will change. They will no longer think that it's worth 8 or 9 units of risk, instead they'll probably think it's worth 5 or 6 units of risk, which allows more risk in other areas of the movie.

Firstly I really see the 3d aspect as more of a selling point than a risk. That was the first thing that you heard in Avatar's marketing drive, the 3d aspect being hyped up, without that Avatar wouldn't have had its big gimmick. This was their ticket to making big money, not something they seemed at all nervous or unsure of. Secondly, I find the term risk in relation to story to not be entirely appropriate, as I said, no one was expecting Avatar to be challenging or philosophical, but it simply seemed to lack any thought or depth, these things aren't risks, they're simply part of what makes a story good. I don't think there is any significant risk to making your antagonists seem human, you have to still make them evil if you don't want your audience to have to think, but the vast polarization of Avatar is just lazy filmmaking. A good narrative should be able to make that line clear enough without forcing it down your throat.

You didn't sink $250 to $300 million into the production of this movie and $150 to $200 million in advertisement. Not to mention the fact that previous attempts to make full length 3D movies with photo-realistic CG haven't exactly been very successful.

As for the risk involved in making the story more complex, the risk is not that they'll lose money on the film, the risk is that they won't make enough money to prove the viability of 3D movies. Avatar was made with the intention of alleviating the studios' fears of letting directors use 3D technology. The more money Avatar makes, the more confident that the studios will be in letting writers and directors do more with 3D movies. James Cameron did something similar with Terminator 2 and $100 million movies. Even though T2 was a much better movie than Avatar, it was still dumbed down and made more kid friendly to prove the viability of big budget $100 million movies.

Also, I never said that the plot had to be bad for the movie to succeed. I said that the plot, along with a ton of other things in Avatar, were designed to attract the largest audience. The fact that it was stupid and cliche was simply a "side effect" just like how the fact that Big Macs are extremely unhealthy is a merely side effect of what makes it popular.

Not sure that analogy quite works unless you're willing to say that audiences won't go to see a film that doesn't just blatantly tell them what to think, again, I'm just not that cynical. Mainstream audiences may not be that smart, but them are not buffoons, and I think they can accept a story that has a reasonable amount of nuance.

I'm not saying that audiences won't go see movies with complex stories and nuanced performances, I'm saying that fewer people will go see those kinds of movies.

As I mentioned before, cliches are often used not because writers are out of ideas but because cliches work. Think of laugh tracks for example. Everyone says that they hate laugh tracks and there are even actors who refuse to work on shows that have laugh tracks. However, research has consistently shown that people rate jokes and sitcoms as funnier when they are accompanied by laugh tracks. That's why even some good comedy shows have laugh tracks.

The same principle was used with Avatar. Cameron already had a story that was more complex and had more interesting characters but he intentionally dumbed it down so that more people would go see the movie.

Lol Avatar never had a laugh track, lrn to argue n00b.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 09 mars 2010 - 02:09 .

[Twitchmonkey]

Seraosha wrote...

Why over complicate things? If you want to go watch an amazing, intelligent cult classic, go watch Brick or something. Avatar didn't and doesn't need to be anything more than it is. Which is a simple, yet incredibly well done, fable and morality tale.

It's a pity you didn't like it, but each to their own. I do hope you go off and find an amazing film to watch to ease your pain though. Better that than spend any more time barracking this thread.

The problem is that it was not incredibly well done. If it had been one of the stronger examples of the "white man's guilt" (for lack of a better term) stories, then that would have had something going for it, but as it is, it is one of the weakest and most derivative I can remember.

As for wisely spending my time, I don't think there is a wise way to spend my time that involves being on these forums, but I'm here, so this thread is as good as any. I do watch good films though, when I'm not here, which is not often enough.

[Giantevilhead]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Giantevilhead wrote...
You didn't sink $250 to $300 million into the production of this movie and $150 to $200 million in advertisement. Not to mention the fact that previous attempts to make full length 3D movies with photo-realistic CG haven't exactly been very successful.

As for the risk involved in making the story more complex, the risk is not that they'll lose money on the film, the risk is that they won't make enough money to prove the viability of 3D movies. Avatar was made with the intention of alleviating the studios' fears of letting directors use 3D technology. The more money Avatar makes, the more confident that the studios will be in letting writers and directors do more with 3D movies. James Cameron did something similar with Terminator 2 and $100 million movies. Even though T2 was a much better movie than Avatar, it was still dumbed down and made more kid friendly to prove the viability of big budget $100 million movies.

My point was that the 3d was a big part of why it made the profit it made, it wasn't an attempt to create some revolution in filmmaking at the risk of losing money vs a traditional film, it was an effort to make more money. It would have been just as big of a risk not going for 3d as that could have potentially lead to smaller sales figures.

Again, this is hindsight bias. You're rationalize decisions made by the studios using the information available now, not the information they had when they decided to make the movie.

I don't know if you remember but when the trailers came out, very few people were actually impressed by the visuals. In fact, people were predicting the movie to be a flop even a week after it came out.

I'm not saying that audiences won't go see movies with complex stories and nuanced performances, I'm saying that fewer people will go see those kinds of movies.

As I mentioned before, cliches are often used not because writers are out of ideas but because cliches work. Think of laugh tracks for example. Everyone says that they hate laugh tracks and there are even actors who refuse to work on shows that have laugh tracks. However, research has consistently shown that people rate jokes and sitcoms as funnier when they are accompanied by laugh tracks. That's why even some good comedy shows have laugh tracks.

The same principle was used with Avatar. Cameron already had a story that was more complex and had more interesting characters but he intentionally dumbed it down so that more people would go see the movie.

You say that you aren't saying that audiences won't see movies with complex stories, but then you say that, not really sure where you're coming from here. Again, it's not a matter of complex or stupid, it's a matter of somewhat interesting or utterly bland. You don't have to confuse the average audience to produce a stronger narrative than Avatar did. I would have accepted something that was entirely adequate, audiences have grown to embrace adequacy, the problem with Avatar's story is that it was insultingly bad. It was like the movie version of a simple folk song used to soothe elderly dementia patients. Avatar got the box office numbers it got because the visuals were so good, not because the story was something people identified with. Would a better constructed story have resulted in a differing level of success? We'll never know, I suspect that if handled well, we'd see just as many high-quality moviegoers coming in to replace the lowest common denominator it would have lost, and the movie would have had a better chance to stand up to criticism and age.

Fewer people going to see a movie does not constitute as entire audiences not going to see the movie. Audiences mean large groups of people, demographics. Viewers mean the number of people within those demographics. More complex stories won't alienate entire audiences, with some exceptions, but they will reduce the percentage of the people within each demographics who go to see the movie.

Also, I never said that people identified with the story. I said that the visuals and story were designed in such a way that they would attract the largest audience. Like in the example I gave with the laugh tracks, people are not always consciously aware of what they like. Avatar employs certain psychological tricks that draw people in, the simplicity of the story is one such trick. If you really want me to, I can explain the psychological principles behind these things.

If we're approaching this from the angle of trying to divine how Avatar 2 will be handled, however, which is what I think the initial issue was, we still have to deal with your theory that the simplicity of Avatar's sotry was what brought people to the theaters, while we can have this debate, this view has its merits, and it seems to be what Cameron thinks as well, so I still don't see why they wouldn't repeat what worked with the first. Why take a risk when using the same formula results in great box office numbers? You don't really believe that James Cameron has artistic integrity do you? It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

You're still not looking at the big picture here. The simplicity of the story was not just for the audience, it was also to appease the movie studio. The studios know about the various tricks that fill the theater seats. They want those tricks to be employed when investing in big budget flicks. They did that with Star Trek, Transformers, and even the Batman Begins films.

As for James Cameron's artistic integrity, he doesn't need money. He already made over $100 million with Titanic and he spent the last 12 years on his obsession over the Titanic. The only reason why he made Avatar was to push 3D technology.

[Twitchmonkey]

While this has been fun in a manner of speaking, I fear we have not really made any progress in this discussion, resorting to constantly reworking the same ideas with slightly different verbiage, hoping that it will lead to understanding and consensus. As that does not seem to be happening, I'll have to give you the final word, best of luck with any further combatants you may find yourself faced with.

[Balerion84]

Busomjack wrote...

All it was was just Dancing with Wolves in Space. 

Don't insult Dances with wolves like that. Please. That was a very good movie. Avatar was ok, though I regret those 5,-eur I've spent for the ticket.

[SithLordExarKun]

Not as overrated or stupid as ****get ass transformers 2. Guys who go through pubity watch that show to masturbate vigorously to the overrated megan fox.

 ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ******.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 09 mars 2010 - 12:11 .

[Sleepicub09]

well I liked pochantas this movie reminded me of that therefore I liked it never said was an original