Thread: The Avengers
View Single Post
  #278  
Old 05-14-2012, 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KcMsterpce View Post
I'm not cynical about the "innovations" of Avatar. What I don't get is that in the past, Cameron has always pushed the envelope with modern technology. I watch T2 today and I'm STILL wildly impressed with the CGI used in that movie and how well it meshes with the practical effects. More often than not you are seeing real-world makeup design because it cost so much at the time to do the liquid metal effects (and took a long time to create)... it's almost seamless in most cases and looks good EVEN NOW.
Then there's Avatar... a movie he waited over a decade to make so the "technology could catch up to" his vision. Well, - once again this is all about opinion, but - I think it looks rather shitty. It is just a hugeass animated picture the likes of a Zemeckis flick, but trying to pass itself off as "real world" in appearance.
Not once did I feel like I was actually watching a movie taking place in "reality". It felt like an animated CGI movie that happened to have real-life actors amongst the imaginary reality. I was not convinced at all. This isn't because "it's a world that doesn't look like our own and so it's hard to accept." No - I just did NOT think that it ever looked "real". It looked pretty, but I was pissed off that Avatar was insisting that it's not just another digital backlot movie like SIN CITY, 300, or other movies that do such work for artistic effect.

I don't see, frankly, where the money went.
Also, you'd think after 10 years he'd have a good screenplay. Instead it's a complete knockoff of Fern Gully/Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves (diary entries, going native)/Dune (the kwisatz haderach - or any other "chosen one" theme) and SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD (the trees), but dumbed down so that there's no chance of anything exciting or surprising happening during the entire 2 hours+ run time. It's a big blue cartoon.



Going back to how others have stated that these really ARE two very different movies with only the fantasy/fiction element connected and that they made / are making lots of money.
The thing is, I don't think Avatar's world was all that exciting or even imaginative. Most of his "creations" are based on past work and designs of his own and many things that are from Earth - just stylized. And once again, to me, predictable. If I could make my own "alien world" I would do so much more with that kind of budget. Holy shit it would be soooo different.


That's kinda how I feel about it. My thoughts are that it's a movie FOR the fans, made BY a fan. I also know he wanted complete authority of the screenplay so if questions were ever asked of him by the studio he'd know exactly how to answer it. Which is cool.
I don't think The Avengers is a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's perfect summer action fare, a great "fanboy" comic book movie, and not as insulting to the audiences' intelligence as most of the top level blockbusters. Which is why I'm so happy it's doing well. Compared to the other shit that is recognized by ticket sales alone, I want Avengers to make three billion dollars. It won't keep other movies from being shitty and worthless but successful; it will, however, reign supreme for a while (if it makes that much) and I'll be happy that a movie I LIKE is up at the top spot for a time.
Everything said in this post is right on the money. I agree with every word.
Reply With Quote