I jokingly said this to a friend at work, but AVATAR was in planning/preproduction as much as 20 years ago, Cameron has said. That being said... you could technically suggest that Fern Gully plagiarized AVATAR....
:bigggrin:
So at least one AVATAR sequel is confirmed at this point, but with the massive success of this film in the box office so far (last weekend was the biggest box office weekend of all time. OF ALL TIME.), you can bet that Jim Cameron's planned AVATAR trilogy will become a reality.
Interestingly enough, in a recent interview with the LA Times, Jim mentioned that it is quite likely that AVATAR 2 will explore the other moons of the planet Polyphemus, and other planets within the Alpha Centauri system. I can't think of where they would take the story that could involve Neytiri and Jake leaving Pandora, but Cameron has an entire universe in his head. Who knows...
Who says it involves Jake and Neytiri? It kind of seems to me like their story's over. Either people leave them alone (story over), or they come back and bomb the planet to hell and back (story over).
I know I'm grossly oversimplifying things, but I thought to myself the other day and couldn't decide where I thought their story would go after this. I don't know what he'd make a trilogy out of if not new characters.
There's the ramifications of all the technology left by the humans. All those scraps left from the guns ships and walkers and whatnot. Another tribe could pick it up, remember how the humans almost won despite the numerical disadvantage, and a civil war of sorts could start That's the only way though I could see Jake and Neytiri coming back.
I agree, I don't know where you can take Jake and Neytiri. It would be kind of nice to leave them 'happily ever after'. Truthfully, I like the characters, and I wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
Cameron keeps going on about how they designed Neytiri to be the figurative 'perfect woman'. They put a lot of work into her. I'd be kind of surprised if they left those characters alone in future sequels really.
<spoilers>
Then again, so many supporting characters died or were taken out of the picture, it probably would be best to do something with new characters.</spoilers>
I thought about what Koreish said. They still have Jake, and I'm assuming a few of the good scientist types stayed on Pandora. They could take up some of that technology, but I have a feeling the Na'vi would be against doing that.
It does take 5 years to travel one way from Earth to Pandora, so there is at least 10 years before humans could show up again. I don't think that all-out war would happen though - the humans on Pandora were simly hired mercs (from US military) for the corporates looking for unobtanium. A full military invasion probably wouldn't happen, Earth wouldn't be interested in the fallout of a corporate greed that got a bunch of people killed. They knew the risks of that planet when they went to go mine.
I have a feeling we won't be able to guess anything similar to whatever Avatar 2 turns out to do in terms of story and context but my guess is that it will still involve the Na'vi or at least the technology that humanity developed to allow the humans to pilot the Na'vi clones since it appears to still be called Avatar.
So AVATAR has grossed an estimated worldwide total of 1 billion dollars as of this weekend. In three weeks, this film has become the fourth highest grossing film ever, and it has a looooong way to go. It's still selling out IMAX. Incredible.
OK, so a few of us went to go see AVATAR during ICNY at the local MJR (it's more fun at MJR!). I paid close attention to Norm's Avatar at the end, and I realized that it is not Norm's Avatar at all. It was a native Na'vi wearing Norm's clothes. If you look closely in the shot just before the one where you see the "Norm" Avatar, you'll notice a Na'vi wearing Grace's clothes as well. I presume this is simply a method of honoring Grace, or a way of showing acceptance of the humans that fought for the Na'vi... whatever the reason, we can all rest assured, Norm and his Avatar are not breaking story continuity.
Bandrik and I talked for a good hour or so last night about this film, and more specifically, something I've dubbed post Pandorean depression. I also talked to Cannonfodder and Myrmidon about it at ICNY. It seems a good deal of people leave this movie in a strange funk, or a state of depression. I've seen it all over the internet, and though I can't relate to the level that so many others seem to be experiencing, it does make some sense to me. The same thing happens to people in books, in video games, and the like, and I can see why it would happen with a film as well. I felt it to an extent, but I'm more overwhelmed by the technology of it all that it takes priority in my mind.
Avatar is sort of a perfect method of escapism. Never before in cinema has a manufactured world been presented in such photorealistic, vivid clarity. It's completely believable. It is as if people leave the film disappointed that this fantastic world doesn't actually exist, and that they devalue their own world as a result. I don't know what this says about the human condition, maybe these are just overly vocal weirdos. But I think it does present an interesting possible side effect of this new era of photo-real cinema. When more and more films become this effective at creating new worlds and environments, I wonder if that means we'll see more and more people affected emotionally at what they're experiencing.
Ugh... still need to go see this. I have today through Tuesday off, PTO, to settle into my new house. I may have to make a trip to the theater at some point. I attempted to see it this past Tuesday afternoon, got there 20 minutes early, it sold out right before we were able to get tickets. I was shocked that it sold out a 6:20 show that early on a Tuesday. Then I remembered that it's Winter Vacation and the theater is close to the MSU campus.
Pandora is supposed to be the perfect Earth right? An Earth that could have been. What if the sequel took place on Earth? Or at the very least give us a glimpse of it. Jake mentioned that there was no green left. Maybe the big wig from the corporation will try and fix this issue? But this is probably the least likely of the sequel options.
Avatar is sort of a perfect method of escapism. Never before in cinema has a manufactured world been presented in such photorealistic, vivid clarity. It's completely believable. It is as if people leave the film disappointed that this fantastic world doesn't actually exist, and that they devalue their own world as a result.
I mentioned the Holodeck to you last night during our extensive phone conversation, and how I heard someone say it would be our undoing. While I think what I remembered came from a stand-up comedian, I found what I believe to be the original source. Written by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame), an except from "Why Life will NOT be like Star Trek"
For those of you who only watched the 'old' Star Trek, the holodeck can create simulated worlds that look and feel just like the real thing. The characters on Star Trek use the holodeck for recreation during breaks from work. This is somewhat unrealistic. If I had a holodeck, I'd close the door and never come out until I died of exhaustion. It would be hard to convince me I should be anywhere but in the holodeck, getting my oil massage from Cindy Crawford and her simulated twin sister.
Holodecks would be very addicting. If there weren't enough holodecks to go around, I'd get the names of all the people who had reservations ahead of me and beam them into concrete walls. I'd feel tense about it, but that's exactly why I'd need a massage.
I'm afraid the holodeck will be society's last invention.
I think this is more or less accurate. Imagine what things would be like if Second Life wasn't the ugly steaming pile of mess that it is right now. What if they developed a "Second Life" like game that had extremely realistic graphics (similar to current CGI films) where you could be anyone or anything you wanted to be, at any place, at any time you want to go, instantly?
Would any sane person really want to live in a mundane reality of responsibilities and limitations?
If you can have a fully-functioning society within that world in which you have responsibilities to hunt, sell, buy, and otherwise pay for your nourishment, well-being, and connectivity to the holo-universe, how's that better or worse than being a functioning member of "real world" society?
If you go in there and do nothing but get lap dances all day, yeah, you'll drop out of work, lose all sources of income, and get your house repossessed and all your worldly possessions (including your fancy holodeck setup) will disappear - thus requiring you to remember that you balance responsibility with play.
People get too worked up about the 3% of society with addictive personalities that will wreck themselves on anything they like - gambling, WoW, Second Life, alcohol, crack cocaine...
Gotta say...
Graphics were pretty.
Movie was facepalm predictable tripe.
This was my opinion. There simply wasn't enough effort put into making the story as interactive as the movie. I realise you can only tell a story so many times but the end was very cringeworthy (and a little obvious).
Confirming what we already knew - AVATAR sequel eventually. Interesting to note that it'll follow Jake and Neytiri, but other than that, the story will not be continuous. We may not even see Pandora.
Of course, I'd say that article is 'pretty accurate'. It could still be rubbish, but we know at least one sequel will happen.
Also, regarding the stuff I mentioned a week or so ago about people feeling sad after seeing AVATAR, CNN has reported extensively on it (lulz)
And seriously, this link. The quote at the end makes me facepalm in shame. I mean, I felt all kinds of weird after this film, but really? suicide? Standing up and barking at people in the theater? I'd love to think this person is a troll, but the results are too consistent for that many people to be on the troll wagon.
Oh hey! Avatar won a Golden Globe for 'Best Drama.'
Even while avoiding the topic of whether Avatar was a good film or not, the day that it wins 'Best Drama' is the day I'm convinced that our last bit of intelligence has left us in order to take up residence with rocks(or whatever) which it considers to be a much safer bet for the future.
The judges or whoever votes must set their drama barometer's top-end at daytime soaps as this is THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY AVATAR COULD HAVE WON SUCH A CATEGORY.
Grimnoc, I saw the film on Sat and I respectfully disagree.
I thought it was brilliant. The visuals and 3D asside, Avatar tells a fantasy story in a way that keeps it connected to modern humanity. Its a hard balance to obtain but they did it. Sure, its not the traditional independently made, over acted, "search for the human condition", kind of film, but why should it be snubbed because its not? Aren't you tired of these self important actors and critics telling you what makes a quality film? The people have spoken on this one, and Avatar is the peoples choice.
Straight up, we got to the end of the film, five weeks after its initial release, packed theater, and people applauded, and it did not feel cheesy that they did, it just felt like genuine appreciation and it was nice to be a part of it. This film connects with the average movie goer, why should it carry any less weight for award because one or two critics think a film about a absurdly handsome middle aged guy who seems to be missing his own life "up in the air" is the more traditional kind of film that "has to be made" and rewarded to compensate for its lack of commercial success.... Don't get me wrong, I enjoy that kind of flim too, but it should not be exclusive to every accolade.
Would we say Peter Jackson did not deserve his Oscar for Return of the King? The first fantasy film ever to win best picture, in the rich history of cinema not once had a fantasy film won prior to that? That to me is where the press and self important critics sometimes miss the mark. There is a wider appeal to cinema than deep character studies, and the "search for the human condition" bullshit. Sometimes an audience just wants to be entertained, and Avatar is one damn entertaining film, while still maintaining some value thematically. I believe Avatar will be worthy of every accolade it earns.
Oh hey! Avatar won a Golden Globe for 'Best Drama.'
The judges or whoever votes must set their drama barometer's top-end at daytime soaps as this is THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY AVATAR COULD HAVE WON SUCH A CATEGORY.
Agreed.
It was a fun movie, but it's value as a drama is so far beneath questionable that I won't even say it was questionable.
When you look at Star Wars and Jaws specifically, (and when I say Star Wars I obviously mean the original trilogy), what elevates them to timelessness is the human drama. Jaws as a technical achievement is cool and all, but everyone knows the best scene is under the deck with all the guys drinking together, and the reveal about the USS Indianapolis. If you don't care about the man being eaten by the giant mechanical shark, it really does not matter what the visual effect delivers, its all in the set up, the human drama.
In Star Wars you really feel invested in those characters, sure, the visuals were astounding, but unless you care about Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, even the droids you don't go back to that film just to watch things blow up. You can lop someones hand off and destroy his perception of the world two seconds later, or freeze a guy alive, but none of it matters unless the audience is invested, unless they care about the characters, and at one time, Lucas understood this and thats why I whip out one of the original trilogy DVD's every few months to watch them again and again.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, take the transformers, do you really give a damn about Sam and his tramp? Nope, things go bang, they look impressive as hell, and I would even say you got your nine bucks worth at the theater, but ultimately, its not a film your going to pop in thirty years from now and marvel at it as an achievement just for its technical aspects, because frankly, the only compelling characters in the whole story are the non human ones, and perhaps the Mom and Dad added for comic relief. Watching a film to see things go bang works for the first playback, but unless there is a compelling story, you can't call it timeless.
I have not seen Avatar, but I know Cameron is a filmmaker that "gets it". Take Terminator 2, a film decorated for its technical achievement in visual effects at the time, now about 20 years later T2 is still, every bit as good as the first time you watched it because you care about the Connor's. You want them to survive, its even sad when the smelt Arnold at the end. In other words, visual effects are one thing, but they alone can't make a film "timeless", a great story with human drama and characters that you actually care about is what you return for.
Grimnoc, I saw the film on Sat and I respectfully disagree.
I thought it was brilliant. The visuals and 3D asside, Avatar tells a fantasy story in a way that keeps it connected to modern humanity. Its a hard balance to obtain but they did it. Sure, its not the traditional independently made, over acted, "search for the human condition", kind of film, but why should it be snubbed because its not? Aren't you tired of these self important actors and critics telling you what makes a quality film? The people have spoken on this one, and Avatar is the peoples choice.
Straight up, we got to the end of the film, five weeks after its initial release, packed theater, and people applauded, and it did not feel cheesy that they did, it just felt like genuine appreciation and it was nice to be a part of it. This film connects with the average movie goer, why should it carry any less weight for award because one or two critics think a film about a absurdly handsome middle aged guy who seems to be missing his own life "up in the air" is the more traditional kind of film that "has to be made" and rewarded to compensate for its lack of commercial success.... Don't get me wrong, I enjoy that kind of flim too, but it should not be exclusive to every accolade.
Would we say Peter Jackson did not deserve his Oscar for Return of the King? The first fantasy film ever to win best picture, in the rich history of cinema not once had a fantasy film won prior to that? That to me is where the press and self important critics sometimes miss the mark. There is a wider appeal to cinema than deep character studies, and the "search for the human condition" bullshit. Sometimes an audience just wants to be entertained, and Avatar is one damn entertaining film, while still maintaining some value thematically. I believe Avatar will be worthy of every accolade it earns.
Cliff, I'll agree that a film's value is not determined by the depth at which it explores the human soul, or whatnot. However, the problem I see with Avatar being considered worthy of these awards is that it literally offers us nothing in the way of valuable character interactions, which are essential to any drama. The characters of Avatar are each ripped directly from innumerable action/adventure/epic war films from the last two decades, and as characterizations do about as good a job as cardboard cut-outs.
Now, if the film were nominated for other awards (Best Epic Action Movie, Best Box Office Rankings, Best Unintentional Comedy, Best Mindless Piece of Eye-Candy, as examples) I would certainly not protest. But these "deep character studies" and the "search for the human condition" type of "bullshit," are actually major components of drama as a genre, as drama is inherently a genre which is almost entirely focused upon its characters first, and characters' surroundings only after.
As a side note, Up in the Air actually was a worth-while drama which at no point was preachy, douche-bag-ish, or ham-fisted. Well acted, well directed, and written with at least a bit of creativity behind the author's pen.
Cliff, I'll agree that a film's value is not determined by the depth at which it explores the human soul, or whatnot. However, the problem I see with Avatar being considered worthy of these awards is that it literally offers us nothing in the way of valuable character interactions, which are essential to any drama. The characters of Avatar are each ripped directly from innumerable action/adventure/epic war films from the last two decades, and as characterizations do about as good a job as cardboard cut-outs.
Now, if the film were nominated for other awards (Best Epic Action Movie, Best Box Office Rankings, Best Unintentional Comedy, Best Mindless Piece of Eye-Candy, as examples) I would certainly not protest. But these "deep character studies" and the "search for the human condition" type of "bullshit," are actually major components of drama as a genre, as drama is inherently a genre which is almost entirely focused upon its characters first, and characters' surroundings only after.
As a side note, Up in the Air actually was a worth-while drama which at no point was preachy, douche-bag-ish, or ham-fisted. Well acted, well directed, and written with at least a bit of creativity behind the author's pen.
Before I start, my "Up in the Air" comparison was not meant to smite that specific film, it was intended to illustrate a wider point, which I am sure you understood, but just figured it would make sense for me to clarify.
To quote you,
"if the film were nominated for other awards (Best Epic Action Movie, Best Box Office Rankings, Best Unintentional Comedy, Best Mindless Piece of Eye-Candy, as examples)"
There it is, the paradigm for what is worthy of praise has been shaped by past awards shows so much that we might figure the only way an "Epic Action Movie" should be considered is if it gets its own sub genre category. Seriously, no way is it possible that the best epic action movie could also be the best film anyone has seen all year?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I will say that I cared about the Navi, and I grew to care about Jake through the course of the story. I want to be careful about spoiler material here, but lets just say, even though the story takes a fairly predictable path, there was a real old fashioned sense of "good vs. evil" very simple, very pure, but in a way that it vests you into believing in the hero's cause, and yet it was coated in just enough gray that you might understand why even the villains thought they were doing what was necessary. I don't want to skew anyones perspective that may not have seen it, but it was fairly obvious to me how it connected to real life problems and current events. How sometimes its hard to see both sides of the conflict unless you actually see how the other half lives. I don't find Avatar to be a shallow film at all.
There it is, the paradigm for what is worthy of praise has been shaped by past awards shows so much that we might figure the only way an "Epic Action Movie" should be considered is if it gets its own sub genre category. Seriously, no way is it possible that the best epic action movie could also be the best film anyone has seen all year?
Cliff,
By no means am I saying that an Epic Action Movie can't be the best film of the year. It rarely if ever happens, but it is possible. The point I meant to make was that Avatar is not a drama, and the dramatic tid-bits of the film which do exist are lack-luster when compared to a strongly-stated and well-executed drama, ie Up in the Air.
By no means am I saying that an Epic Action Movie can't be the best film of the year. It rarely if ever happens, but it is possible. The point I meant to make was that Avatar is not a drama, and the dramatic tid-bits of the film which do exist are lack-luster when compared to a strongly-stated and well-executed drama, ie Up in the Air.
I mean no douche-baggery.
Oh not at all, I don't find you out of line at all. We just have a difference of opinion.
Seriously, no way is it possible that the best epic action movie could also be the best film anyone has seen all year?
That's not the point.
Yes, the 'Best Epic Action' movie could also be 'Best Film' of the year. This however, is a completely different matter from it being the 'Best Drama' of the the year. Like ChipDapper pointed out, characters and interactions between them are one huge factor of what makes a drama. Hence, the better written and developed said characters are the more business a movie has in winning a 'Best Drama' award.
Also, you can 'care' about characters who aren't necessarily well-written and drama-driven. For instance, I love Luke Skywalker and I 'cared' when Obi-Wan died but I don't think anyone would award Star Wars with the 'Best Drama' award.
I didn't even like Avatar all that much but even I won't say that it was not deserving of any type of award. But, it definitely wasn't worthy of an award that is specifically intended to go towards films based solely on their dramatic merits.
Comments
So at least one AVATAR sequel is confirmed at this point, but with the massive success of this film in the box office so far (last weekend was the biggest box office weekend of all time. OF ALL TIME.), you can bet that Jim Cameron's planned AVATAR trilogy will become a reality.
Interestingly enough, in a recent interview with the LA Times, Jim mentioned that it is quite likely that AVATAR 2 will explore the other moons of the planet Polyphemus, and other planets within the Alpha Centauri system. I can't think of where they would take the story that could involve Neytiri and Jake leaving Pandora, but Cameron has an entire universe in his head. Who knows...
I know I'm grossly oversimplifying things, but I thought to myself the other day and couldn't decide where I thought their story would go after this. I don't know what he'd make a trilogy out of if not new characters.
Maybe Norm will be the star of the second movie.
Cameron keeps going on about how they designed Neytiri to be the figurative 'perfect woman'. They put a lot of work into her. I'd be kind of surprised if they left those characters alone in future sequels really.
<spoilers>
I thought about what Koreish said. They still have Jake, and I'm assuming a few of the good scientist types stayed on Pandora. They could take up some of that technology, but I have a feeling the Na'vi would be against doing that.
It does take 5 years to travel one way from Earth to Pandora, so there is at least 10 years before humans could show up again. I don't think that all-out war would happen though - the humans on Pandora were simly hired mercs (from US military) for the corporates looking for unobtanium. A full military invasion probably wouldn't happen, Earth wouldn't be interested in the fallout of a corporate greed that got a bunch of people killed. They knew the risks of that planet when they went to go mine.
OK, so a few of us went to go see AVATAR during ICNY at the local MJR (it's more fun at MJR!). I paid close attention to Norm's Avatar at the end, and I realized that it is not Norm's Avatar at all. It was a native Na'vi wearing Norm's clothes. If you look closely in the shot just before the one where you see the "Norm" Avatar, you'll notice a Na'vi wearing Grace's clothes as well. I presume this is simply a method of honoring Grace, or a way of showing acceptance of the humans that fought for the Na'vi... whatever the reason, we can all rest assured, Norm and his Avatar are not breaking story continuity.
Bandrik and I talked for a good hour or so last night about this film, and more specifically, something I've dubbed post Pandorean depression. I also talked to Cannonfodder and Myrmidon about it at ICNY. It seems a good deal of people leave this movie in a strange funk, or a state of depression. I've seen it all over the internet, and though I can't relate to the level that so many others seem to be experiencing, it does make some sense to me. The same thing happens to people in books, in video games, and the like, and I can see why it would happen with a film as well. I felt it to an extent, but I'm more overwhelmed by the technology of it all that it takes priority in my mind.
Avatar is sort of a perfect method of escapism. Never before in cinema has a manufactured world been presented in such photorealistic, vivid clarity. It's completely believable. It is as if people leave the film disappointed that this fantastic world doesn't actually exist, and that they devalue their own world as a result. I don't know what this says about the human condition, maybe these are just overly vocal weirdos. But I think it does present an interesting possible side effect of this new era of photo-real cinema. When more and more films become this effective at creating new worlds and environments, I wonder if that means we'll see more and more people affected emotionally at what they're experiencing.
I mentioned the Holodeck to you last night during our extensive phone conversation, and how I heard someone say it would be our undoing. While I think what I remembered came from a stand-up comedian, I found what I believe to be the original source. Written by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame), an except from "Why Life will NOT be like Star Trek"
I think this is more or less accurate. Imagine what things would be like if Second Life wasn't the ugly steaming pile of mess that it is right now. What if they developed a "Second Life" like game that had extremely realistic graphics (similar to current CGI films) where you could be anyone or anything you wanted to be, at any place, at any time you want to go, instantly?
Would any sane person really want to live in a mundane reality of responsibilities and limitations?
If you go in there and do nothing but get lap dances all day, yeah, you'll drop out of work, lose all sources of income, and get your house repossessed and all your worldly possessions (including your fancy holodeck setup) will disappear - thus requiring you to remember that you balance responsibility with play.
People get too worked up about the 3% of society with addictive personalities that will wreck themselves on anything they like - gambling, WoW, Second Life, alcohol, crack cocaine...
Graphics were pretty.
Movie was facepalm predictable tripe.
Love the movie - the effects, the character development, everything...
Only thing I didn't like is it is just another "HUMANS ARE BAD" movie.
Hollywood seems to be caught in a severe case of human-self-loathing...
Of course, I'd say that article is 'pretty accurate'. It could still be rubbish, but we know at least one sequel will happen.
Also, regarding the stuff I mentioned a week or so ago about people feeling sad after seeing AVATAR, CNN has reported extensively on it (lulz)
CNN video here: http://holykaw.alltop.com/post-avatar-depression-hits-thousands-of-fans
And seriously, this link. The quote at the end makes me facepalm in shame. I mean, I felt all kinds of weird after this film, but really? suicide? Standing up and barking at people in the theater? I'd love to think this person is a troll, but the results are too consistent for that many people to be on the troll wagon.
Hindenburg?
Who will Leonardo DiCaprio play in this one?
Even while avoiding the topic of whether Avatar was a good film or not, the day that it wins 'Best Drama' is the day I'm convinced that our last bit of intelligence has left us in order to take up residence with rocks(or whatever) which it considers to be a much safer bet for the future.
The judges or whoever votes must set their drama barometer's top-end at daytime soaps as this is THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY AVATAR COULD HAVE WON SUCH A CATEGORY.
I thought it was brilliant. The visuals and 3D asside, Avatar tells a fantasy story in a way that keeps it connected to modern humanity. Its a hard balance to obtain but they did it. Sure, its not the traditional independently made, over acted, "search for the human condition", kind of film, but why should it be snubbed because its not? Aren't you tired of these self important actors and critics telling you what makes a quality film? The people have spoken on this one, and Avatar is the peoples choice.
Straight up, we got to the end of the film, five weeks after its initial release, packed theater, and people applauded, and it did not feel cheesy that they did, it just felt like genuine appreciation and it was nice to be a part of it. This film connects with the average movie goer, why should it carry any less weight for award because one or two critics think a film about a absurdly handsome middle aged guy who seems to be missing his own life "up in the air" is the more traditional kind of film that "has to be made" and rewarded to compensate for its lack of commercial success.... Don't get me wrong, I enjoy that kind of flim too, but it should not be exclusive to every accolade.
Would we say Peter Jackson did not deserve his Oscar for Return of the King? The first fantasy film ever to win best picture, in the rich history of cinema not once had a fantasy film won prior to that? That to me is where the press and self important critics sometimes miss the mark. There is a wider appeal to cinema than deep character studies, and the "search for the human condition" bullshit. Sometimes an audience just wants to be entertained, and Avatar is one damn entertaining film, while still maintaining some value thematically. I believe Avatar will be worthy of every accolade it earns.
Agreed.
It was a fun movie, but it's value as a drama is so far beneath questionable that I won't even say it was questionable.
...but it's questionable.
I think you get it too, Cliff.
Cliff, I'll agree that a film's value is not determined by the depth at which it explores the human soul, or whatnot. However, the problem I see with Avatar being considered worthy of these awards is that it literally offers us nothing in the way of valuable character interactions, which are essential to any drama. The characters of Avatar are each ripped directly from innumerable action/adventure/epic war films from the last two decades, and as characterizations do about as good a job as cardboard cut-outs.
Now, if the film were nominated for other awards (Best Epic Action Movie, Best Box Office Rankings, Best Unintentional Comedy, Best Mindless Piece of Eye-Candy, as examples) I would certainly not protest. But these "deep character studies" and the "search for the human condition" type of "bullshit," are actually major components of drama as a genre, as drama is inherently a genre which is almost entirely focused upon its characters first, and characters' surroundings only after.
As a side note, Up in the Air actually was a worth-while drama which at no point was preachy, douche-bag-ish, or ham-fisted. Well acted, well directed, and written with at least a bit of creativity behind the author's pen.
Before I start, my "Up in the Air" comparison was not meant to smite that specific film, it was intended to illustrate a wider point, which I am sure you understood, but just figured it would make sense for me to clarify.
To quote you,
"if the film were nominated for other awards (Best Epic Action Movie, Best Box Office Rankings, Best Unintentional Comedy, Best Mindless Piece of Eye-Candy, as examples)"
There it is, the paradigm for what is worthy of praise has been shaped by past awards shows so much that we might figure the only way an "Epic Action Movie" should be considered is if it gets its own sub genre category. Seriously, no way is it possible that the best epic action movie could also be the best film anyone has seen all year?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I will say that I cared about the Navi, and I grew to care about Jake through the course of the story. I want to be careful about spoiler material here, but lets just say, even though the story takes a fairly predictable path, there was a real old fashioned sense of "good vs. evil" very simple, very pure, but in a way that it vests you into believing in the hero's cause, and yet it was coated in just enough gray that you might understand why even the villains thought they were doing what was necessary. I don't want to skew anyones perspective that may not have seen it, but it was fairly obvious to me how it connected to real life problems and current events. How sometimes its hard to see both sides of the conflict unless you actually see how the other half lives. I don't find Avatar to be a shallow film at all.
Cliff,
By no means am I saying that an Epic Action Movie can't be the best film of the year. It rarely if ever happens, but it is possible. The point I meant to make was that Avatar is not a drama, and the dramatic tid-bits of the film which do exist are lack-luster when compared to a strongly-stated and well-executed drama, ie Up in the Air.
I mean no douche-baggery.
Oh not at all, I don't find you out of line at all. We just have a difference of opinion.
May we butt heads again soon.
That's not the point.
Yes, the 'Best Epic Action' movie could also be 'Best Film' of the year. This however, is a completely different matter from it being the 'Best Drama' of the the year. Like ChipDapper pointed out, characters and interactions between them are one huge factor of what makes a drama. Hence, the better written and developed said characters are the more business a movie has in winning a 'Best Drama' award.
Also, you can 'care' about characters who aren't necessarily well-written and drama-driven. For instance, I love Luke Skywalker and I 'cared' when Obi-Wan died but I don't think anyone would award Star Wars with the 'Best Drama' award.
I didn't even like Avatar all that much but even I won't say that it was not deserving of any type of award. But, it definitely wasn't worthy of an award that is specifically intended to go towards films based solely on their dramatic merits.
I hate that guy.
I think its just a broad category that means "not comedy or musical"