Avatar

[rhienelleth]

So, I find myself really, really amused at all the articles and naysayers that are popping up re: James Cameron's Avatar. People wailing about how expensive it was to make, how it's going to suck, or flop, or never make back all that money, or other variations on the theme.

First, I want to ask them "Have you seen the trailers?"

But beyond that, this is James Cameron we're talking about. The last time the guy made a film, it was the same story - "OMG, it's costing so much money, wail, moan, whine." I remember when he waved his director's fee in order to complete Titanic.

And then it became the number one grossing movie of all time - and still is, twelve years later.

Uh, maybe people should have a little faith, is all I'm saying.

(Plus, seriously, have you watched the trailer? How can people think this movie is going to suck??)

Comments

[sabaceanbabe.livejournal.com]

I want to see this movie SO DARN BAD IT HURTS!

[rhienelleth.livejournal.com]

I know!!

December 18th feels like such a long time away.

[queenoftheskies.livejournal.com]

I must check out the trailer. I've only heard a little bit about it and am intrigued.

[madlori.livejournal.com]

I wrote an extensive analytical preview for Avatar for the film site I write for. I am one of the ones who predicted Epic Fail.

Yes. I've seen the trailer. Pretty.

I just don't think anyone's going to care. Historically, audiences have a bad track record of caring about alien civilizations and the things that happen to the people in them. No one cared about Apocalypto, either (I know, not aliens, but it might as well have been). And two minutes of CGI characters in a trailer is a different story than 3.5 hours of it. Second, one word: PREACHY. The plot of this movie sounds like it was co-authored by Greenpeace. That's the quickest way to annoy your audience. I'm also concerned that this movie may end up squarely in the middle of the Uncanny Valley.

I don't necessarily think it's going to suck. I suspect that people aren't going to find it that compelling.

Feel free to throw this back in my face if it makes a gojillion dollars, by the way. :-)

[rhienelleth.livejournal.com]

Really! That is so interesting to me.

I don't see Avatar as anything like Apocalypto, which was slow and very uninteresting, IMO. I do see why parallels would be drawn, but Avatar looks much more visually stunning, action packed, better paced, better written, with better characters and story, etc.

I also see why people might see it as preachy. I don't, and I'm usually among the first to boo a movie that's being forced to make the point of a political agenda. Maybe it's because I'm a SF fan, and I can look back at Aliens and various books/series and say "yes, this a classic SF story trope". Is it a native people being exploited? Yes. Is it a metaphor for the white man destroying native american populaces? Maybe. As much as Firefly is a metaphor for an alternate outcome to the American Revolution, I guess. See, I tend to think that yes, when we eventually explore the universe, there will be exploitation - of worlds, of ecosystems, of whatever alien cultures might exist - it's practically inevitable. It's not like I think all humanity is like that, but someone, somewhere, will be greedy enough to try. I think the fact that the story is that recognizable is actually in its favor - it isn't some incomprehensible SF film (because those never go over well).

As far as it being compelling - Cameron was able to make the story of the Titanic compelling through character - Rose and Jack. He created them and their story for that specific purpose. I suspect he's done the same thing with Avatar, creating a very personal story with the characters to make his SF epic accessible to the audience.

SF author John Scalzi wrote a pretty interesting article on why he thinks Avatar (probably) won't flop here, if you're interested: http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2009/11/avatar-box-office-predictions.php

I see the trailer and think Avatar will be for SF what LOTR did for fantasy, but I could be wrong, and then you can throw this post back in my face. :D

[dragonsinger.livejournal.com]

Sadly, there are sci-fi snobs out there. I don't understand how they operate, but they think everything is going to suck. *Shrugs*

I, however, am interested in seeing it. I'm hoping he paid as much attention to story and characters as he did effects.

[glamaphonic]

I've never made any commentary, nor do I plan to, postulating how the movie will do mostly because I just don't care at all. I've even on occasion refuted some of the more ridiculous articles complaining about it because some complaints/positions people are taking are clearly just backlash.

Yet and still, I think it's going to suck because...I watched the trailers and thought it looked like a terrible movie!

Generic, misguided SFF about some white dude assisting in exploitation of an indigenous people then having a change of heart and ~*~rescuing~*~ the Noble Savages after he sets his sights on a hot piece of Noble Savage ass. Hanging out in the Uncanny Valley with a bunch of pretty colors doesn't make that any less tiresome.

And if that's not the movie this is then...shitty job, trailers, because that's the movie it looks like.

[voleuse.livejournal.com]

Generic, misguided SFF about some white dude assisting in exploitation of an indigenous people then having a change of heart and ~*~rescuing~*~ the Noble Savages after he sets his sights on a hot piece of Noble Savage ass.

Yeah, that's pretty much my concern and/or impression, too.

[monimala.livejournal.com]

I was going to say pretty much what you said, so I'll just line up behind Voleuse to say "ITA!"

The movie was barely on my radar but when I finally caught the trailer during TVD, I thought it looked completely ridiculous and that the CGI was awful. And that, yes, it looked like it had hinky race issues out the wazu.

ETA: Okay, my brother informs me that the CGI looks like crap because I don't have a hi-def TV.

However, I still think the story looks silly.