web
counter
 

My Favorite Part Was When They Used the Ponytail of Life as a Joystick to Drive the Dragons

By TK | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (37)



avatarx-topper-medium.jpg

It was, in many ways, inevitable. Avatar, James Cameron’s magnum opus, after raking in $1.292 billion worldwide as of Tuesday, has broken the box office record previously set by his other mega-super hit, Titanic. God only knows what this will do to Cameron’s already-bloated ego. Interestingly, we didn’t actually do a lot of pre-release coverage here — a movie poster here, a bit of trailer there — whether that was due to our legitimate lack of interest, or because we’re such obscene anti-establishment hipster elitists (as many of you are likely to proclaim), doesn’t really matter. Avatar was an unstoppable force, a juggernaut destined to bludgeon its way to the top of the heap. Truth be told, Cameron didn’t even need half the budget he used to blow up the box office. Sure, he likely wouldn’t have broken the record, but he still would have stampeded up the charts anyway. The man’s name, for better or worse, is pretty much gold to the moviegoing public.

There are uncountable conversations to have about Avatar, that, now that I’ve finally seen it, I can say are actually worthwhile. Is it worthy of Best Picture? Hell, is it worthy of the nomination? Is it “better” than The Hurt Locker? Does it deserve its financial success? Should we be somehow insulted/ashamed/enraged at the ridiculous amount of money that it cost to make?

That’s up for folks to discuss, I suppose. Personally, I’m on the fence. Visually, it is unquestionably unparalleled. When I first saw the trailers, I was completely underwhelmed. I thought it didn’t look any more impressive than a really good current-gen video game. But in an IMAX theater, in 3-D, it was without a doubt amazing. Cameron may well have changed the game, although I’m not sure how possible that is, given what it cost to change it. Has he set the bar impossibly high?

At least at the moment, spending $200 to $350 million (which are the current budgetary estimates) is well out of the reach of most film makers. Only someone like Cameron, and possibly (and unfortunately) Michael Bay could ever get that kind of backing. But things change in time. What was once revolutionary inevitably becomes routine, and eventually Avatar’s effects will become just that. Afterward, we’ll only be left with the story.

Of course, much like Titanic, that story is a mixed bag. The Titanic audience, based on my completely arbitrary and often spotty recollection, was about 70 percent teenage girls who loved Leo, and 30 percent people who just wanted to see the goddamn boat sink (I was furious that nothing happened for like a goddamn hour). Avatar’s audience is comprised of those who went to see the spectacle, to see what all the fuss is about, and those who are completely devoted to it. But after I saw it, I was left strangely empty. Amazed by the visuals, yes, but Avatar was also guilty of poor dialogue, a simplistic plot, barren, obvious villains, and plenty of downright silliness (the title of this post is a direct quote from Mrs. TK after we saw the film — she was not particularly impressed, to put it lightly).

So does Avatar deserve its accolades? Probably not. Does it deserve Best Picture (or the nomination)? That’s a tricky subject. If there was some sort of special honorary Oscar for revolutionary technical achievement, or for advancing the medium, I’d say hell yes. But the fact is, strip away the effects and the hype and the whiz-bang kerfuffle and you’re left with the cinematic equivalent of a mediocre science fiction novel. There’s nothing there that hasn’t been done, and done better, by dozens of sci-fi writers. It’s no surprise that it’s popular — audiences rarely flock to the great movies, they flock to the entertaining ones. This is no surprise. It’s the rare picture like The Dark Knight that successfully merges action, effects and excellent writing. There’s the rub with Avatar’s receipts and its awards. It’s being awarded for its technology, not necessarily for being a great movie.

But one thing we’ve learned is that to make money in films, you’ve got to spend it, and in that sense Avatar definitely earned (or spent its way into) its spot in history. Avatar’s success hinged on the money spent creating it, and likely it will always be thus, with occasional, rare exceptions. The films that have made the most money have always been the ones that cost the most money — The Dark Knight, Titanic, The Lord of the Rings, and now Avatar. Sometimes they’re good, sometimes they’re great, sometimes they’re somewhere in-between.

Still, the thing with the ponytails was pretty goddamned goofy.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Samuel L. Jackson News | "Damages" Season 3 Review









Comments

Dan posted this on facebook. Makes me feel much better about all this silliness:

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/avatar-ticket-sales-.html

Posted by: figgy at January 27, 2010 11:55 AM

I was wondering what would happen if they ever cut their hair. Or maybe they can't? That's why the dreadlocks?

Posted by: Alexandra at January 27, 2010 11:55 AM

I actually liked the ponytail bit. I though that part was separate from the rest of the hair? It was shorter then that bit was down her back? I had the same thought about hair cuts, so paid a bit closer attention...this may prove that the story itself was not exactly riveting for me. It sure was pretty though!

Posted by: Carrie (aka Teabelly) at January 27, 2010 12:10 PM

I've always said I really enjoyed Avatar, but I never thought it was a great movie.

It's ridiculously entertaining, at least to a nerd like me, and I ate up every second of it. But that's all it is, pure cheese entertainment. While I can't deny that the effects and the visuals are completely amazing and captivating, I have to agree with the general consensus that Cameron is a hack storyteller who couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. Not currently, anyway.

It may have been the movie I had the most fun at last year, but I don't think it deserves to win any awards, outside of the technical ones.

Posted by: Snath at January 27, 2010 12:10 PM

No one had nipples. That is all.

Posted by: superasente at January 27, 2010 12:10 PM

Maybe they haven't invented scissors yet?

Posted by: BWeaves at January 27, 2010 12:11 PM

The level of performance capture here was phenomenal from a technical perspective. Now, Zoe Saldana was the only one really acting even 5% beyond channeling the story-appropriate stereotypes, but they got audience buy-in on it.

That alone is worth something. This is going to introduce a sea change. We're going to get phenomenal performances in fully computer-generated characters. People playing different ages, species, etc.

We're also going to get a flood of total crap. But then, it's always the flood of total crap that precedes and funds art.

Pulp and porn are always the go-to places for new tech. I'm certain the first writing scrawled on a cave wall was a symbol of great psychological and religious importance.... and right next to that, the next proto-human to walk by scrawled a picture of his dick.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at January 27, 2010 12:12 PM

So, if they don't have nipples, they don't suckle their young. Do they eat first and then regurgitate into the baby's mouth? So many questions, so little interest in the answers.

Posted by: BWeaves@cfl.rr.com at January 27, 2010 12:14 PM

How can there be boobs and no nipples?!

Posted by: gee. ay. at January 27, 2010 12:16 PM


I really don't see how Avatar is any better than that cheesy Beowulf movie that came out a few years back.

Posted by: Dave at January 27, 2010 12:19 PM

Fine, people want nipples in Avatar II? You know what you'll end up with?

Freaky nipple suits like in Batman and Robin.

Nipples (just for good measure).

Posted by: branded at January 27, 2010 12:21 PM

"How can there be boobs and no nipples?!"

Maybe they're like Pop-up Headlights on sports cars.

Posted by: oskar at January 27, 2010 12:25 PM

your wife is awesome :)

Posted by: gem at January 27, 2010 12:26 PM

This thread is going interesting places, I can already tell.

Posted by: superasente at January 27, 2010 12:26 PM

It's not the best film of the year, that goes to Up, or Up in the Air, but it's the most memorable. It's kind of like if movies were Rolling Stones songs, Avatar would be "Satisfaction." Not their best (that honor goes to "Tumbling Dice"), or their most intelligent (that goes to "Sweet Black Angel"), but it's the one people will most remember. That counts for a lot.

Posted by: George at January 27, 2010 12:29 PM

George, I agree with every single word. Nominations for Best Picture should encompass more than just "Best Story." They need to look at the entire film-making experience and determine what an individual movie did to at least meet expectations, and at most exceed them. Avatar wasn't the most emotionally moving picture of the year. It didn't have the best script or the best acting. It didn't have the best characters. But what it had, it had the most of.

I would argue that this movie envelopes the viewer like no other movie has done. This movie draws you in like a warm bath. It had the most spectacular imagery in the history of film. More than any other movie ever made, this movie feels REAL. You're not walking around some alien world that's really on a sound-stage somewhere. You're not in the "alien" forests of Canada or the Desserts of New Mexico. You're on Pandora. When the place finally starts blowing up, you're not upset because the characters are upset, you're upset because the film has spent the last hour and a half drawing you into the majesty and wonder of this alien place and showing you why you should love it. You're not sad because the smurfy indians are biting it. You're sad because this place you love is being damaged.

Best Picture is well deserved. At least the nomination if not the win.

Posted by: superasente at January 27, 2010 1:16 PM

The category in question is called Best Picture. Not "most visually stimulating picture, to the point where it gives some guy in Taiwan a stroke." It infuriates me that it is even being considered. People are fairly uninimously saying things like "the story wasn't great, but it looked AWESOME!" You know what else matches that description? Porn and pro wrestling.

(n.b. the exception to the above quote is my boss, who very cleverly noted that "I liked that they made the aliens seem kind of like Native Americans." *elitist facepalm*)

If looks is all we're going on for awards now, then I'm calling bullshit on last year's Oscars. Slumdog still gets the big prize, 'cause it was pretty and colourful (except when it wasn't for thematic reasons), but David Fincher is hella prettier than that uggo Danny Boyle, Brad Pitt's chiselled jaw destroys Sean Penn's ratface, and there are few people in the world prettier than Anne Hathaway. I demand a recount. Sound petty? Sound superficial? Well that's what we're supporting if another Cameron optical orgasm wins Best Picture.

(n.b. The supporting actor/actress winners were spot on.)

Posted by: Death By Hippopotamus at January 27, 2010 1:16 PM

Nipples aside, and talking sillyness.. what about the "everyone gather 'round the thingy, hold your hands and do a strange dance" bit?? Quite awkward...

Posted by: Sweet Jane at January 27, 2010 1:18 PM

...but what it (Avatar) had, it had the most of.
I can only think of the Firesign Theater:
"Why--this is a bag of shit!"
"But it's really good shit!"

Posted by: Jim Doggie at January 27, 2010 1:41 PM

Avatar wasn't the most emotionally moving picture of the year. It didn't have the best script or the best acting. It didn't have the best characters.

You are not helping your own case here.

Or as Alec Baldwin would say, "Put. That coffee. Down."

Posted by: branded at January 27, 2010 1:44 PM

If Avatar should do anything to affect our concept of the Academy Awards, it's that the Best Special Effects award should become more valuable, not just relegated to a "technical" award. I'd be fine with this, giving Cameron a SFX award and everyone seeing it about on par with Best Screenplay or even Best Actor.

Unfortunately, I don't think people's conceptions (including the vast number of old white male Academy voters) are going to change by March 7th. Thus I will still surely be left with the shock and awe reaction:

"BEST PICTURE? You have GOT to be shitting me."

Luckily, this has happened every year of my Oscar-watching life, outside of the years The Departed and No Country For Old Men won, so I'm used to it.

P.S. How about those two movies as examples of technical mastery AND good stories AND (how about that) no white guilt fantasy?

Posted by: Chris P. at January 27, 2010 1:56 PM

@Jim Doggie

HA! Thanks for bringing back a piece of my formative year memories.
Dad was an artist. When it wasn't Jimi, Janice or the Zepp jamming
through the walls, it was Firesign Theatre or Spike Jones. Well that and
this strange smelling smokey stuff wafting under the door jam.
And turpentine.

Posted by: Ms MoMo at January 27, 2010 2:04 PM

This is the second time I've noticed this here, but why is your # for the gross on Avatar ~$500m shy of the rest of the world?

http://www.collider.com/2010/01/25/avatar-achieves-the-highest-worldwide-gross-of-all-time-with-184-billion/

Now it’s official, as The Hollywood Reporter puts the technological wonder at an estimated global total of $1.8437 billion, just ahead of Titanic’s worldwide total of $1,843,201,268.


Fact nitpicking aside, I thought it was a great movie. It wasn't the emotional indie drama of the year, but we've got plenty of those. It was a great piece of film making, and did a better job of transplanting you to the world of the characters than 99% of movies. The fact that it did it more through technical wizardry than through engaging dialogue doesn't make it less of an achievement.

Posted by: Jason H. at January 27, 2010 2:06 PM

DbH: You're right. The category is "Best Picture." Not "Best Imagery." Not "Best Characters." Not "Best Script."

It isn't "Best Direction" or "Best Acting." It isn't "Best Special Effects" or "Best Blowjob" (hey, you brought up porn).

It's Best Picture. It is designed to encompass the entire filmmaking experience in an effort to award the most entertaining film of the year.

Sometimes that entertainment comes in the form of drama. Sometimes that entertainment comes in the form of action. Sometimes that entertainment comes in the form of soul-searching comedy or romance. It's no easy task and very often the judges/academy are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Avatar is one of the most entertaining films of the year, if not THE most entertaining. If you don't agree with me, that's fine -- but you should not be so quick to dismiss the general consensus of Earth's population. Maybe YOU weren't entertained, but almost everyone else was. To the tune of 1.25 Billion Dollars. Whether that's worth the price of a ticket or not, thats some pretty hefty good-will. That's quite a lot of entertainment.

Now, the academy might compare "Avatar" to "Up In The Air" or "The Hurt Locker" and walk away like the rest of us -- those movies are better because they emotionally resonate with us better. All the flash and bang of a movie aside, we enjoy the movie-going experience because people are creatures of empathy. The more we feel what the film wants us to feel, the more we enjoy ourselves. "Avatar" falls short in this way, and ultimately this might mean that Cameron doesn't take home the wee gold man. But he at least -- AT LEAST -- deserves an academy nod for writing, directing and producing the most successful film in the history of cinema.

Posted by: superasente at January 27, 2010 2:16 PM

My mate keeps trying to get me to go see Avatar.
With the very convincing line of, "If you dont like it, I'll give you back the ticket money."(Eessh, what's in it for her I wonder). She tells me it's part of our era. Indeed!

I'm sure it's probably worth or not worth the hype but I still dont feel the urge.

Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 2:38 PM

"..It didn't have the best script or the best acting. It didn't have the best characters. But what it had, it had the most of"

--------------------------------------------

Hype.

On that we agree.


Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 27, 2010 3:36 PM

"It didn't have the best script or the best acting. It didn't have the best characters. But what it had, it had the most of"

"It's Best Picture. It is designed to encompass the entire filmmaking experience in an effort to award the most entertaining film of the year."

For the love of God, people. Just because a movie is entertaining, does not make it the "best" movie. If that was the case, The Hangover should win an Oscar. Best Picture is just that: The Best Picture. In all aspects of film that it undertakes, it is done well. Not just one or two. Avatar has the best special effects, possibly ever, no doubt. But compared to other entries, that's essentially all it has. If just making an incredibly entertaining film was all that was needed, Mel Brooks would be up to his ass in gold statues.

Posted by: Skewicide Blonde at January 27, 2010 3:44 PM

To me, Avatar had all the same qualities and faults of the Star Wars Prequelogy, especially The Phantom Menace. Technically cutting edge and visually marvelous, but with its groundbreaking effects wrapped around a mediocre plot with stupid-sounding place names and maguffins (unobtanium contains midichlorians!), wooden acting, and insipid dialog. Let's not forget how both movies were very long in the making and shamelessly over-hyped.

Truth is, I'm still kind of fond of Ep. 1, though I don't really have the werewithal to watch it anymore. I think my fondness is linked to an extent, to the critical shellacking it took for its many flaws when it came out and since. I think I would resent TPM a whole lot if it went on to make a billion and a half dollars and swept the Oscars.

Posted by: Leftylad at January 27, 2010 4:18 PM

It's the Oscars, so by definition I don't give a shit.

Yay it got the record. Let's move on.

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at January 27, 2010 4:22 PM

But George, what about "Sweet Virginia" or "Let It Loose"? Love the Stones and the comparison friend. I get what you are saying. This thing was predestined to do what it has done, thanks to the best marketing blitz of all-time and a shitload of hype. At least he'll have enough money for his next divorce or three.

JC = Jesus Christ OR James Cameron, or BOTH? Your call, world.

Posted by: John Denver's Wingman at January 27, 2010 4:34 PM

"Dances with Wolves" on an alien planet, visuals to the point where you don't have to be on something to appreciate them. entertainment great, but when it comes to seeing it over and over again at home, I don't think so, unless Cameron can personalize an IMAX.

Posted by: zander at January 27, 2010 4:56 PM

Skewicide writes, "The Best Picture is just that: Best Picture.In all aspects of film that it undertakes, it is done well."

I think this sentence applies to "Avatar." The movie at least met expectations if it didn't exceed them. The story was familiar, but well developed and well executed with just enough interesting twists and details to keep your attention. The characters weren't too morally ambiguous or complicated that we couldn't relate to them -- we didn't need our heroes to be gritty or the villains to be empathetic -- they served their purpose well and drove the story. The themes didn't break any new ground, but were constructed solidly on older foundations to marry our comfortable understanding of morality with the fresh perspective of a human impact on an alien world.

Does it deserve to win? Y'know what, that isn't up to me. Does it deserve the nomination? COME ON people! Of course it does.

To drive this point home, here is a short list of other movies to have received the nomination for Best Picture:
1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
2. Juno
3. Ray
4. Master And Commander
5. Gangs of New York
6. Chicago
7. Gladiator
8. Shakespeare in Love
9. The Full Monty
10. Jerry Maguire
11. Babe
12. Apollo 13

Do any of you really believe that THESE movies deserve the nomination, while "Avatar" does not? "Best Film" isn't a blowjob from God, y'know. It isn't a sacred institution.

Posted by: superasente at January 27, 2010 5:20 PM

Just throwing this out there: there were nipples. You could particularly see the nipples when they went in the fuck-grotto. That's how you knew it was time for the fuck. Which, really, freaked me out, because I suddenly found myself thinking about the conversation that made that happen. "How should we build up the tension for the sex scene in the pink wiggly branch grotto?" "Nipples. Show them nipples." Nipples that someone had to animate.

Posted by: sheshakes at January 27, 2010 5:23 PM

Throwing out another note that is ancillary to the central flame of the thread:

I assumed that cutting off their magic ponytails would be fatal. In the scene where Jake is first brought before the Na'avi tribe, one of the male warriors holds a knife to Jake's ponytail, presumably for the same reasons a human warrior would hold a knife to a human's throat.

It's Cameron showing not telling, people! You have to pay attention to what a great director he truly is!

Posted by: Neodiogenes at January 27, 2010 6:21 PM

I'm sure that this will make James Cameron an even nicer person.

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at January 27, 2010 9:20 PM

Re Scissors:
If you were a member of a species that kept their sexual organ/dragon joystick in their hair, would YOU want to invent scissors? NO GOOD CAN COME OF THAT!

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at January 28, 2010 2:01 AM

I know this has been said before, but I just want to reiterate:

Pocahontas + Fern Gully - Singing = Avatar

Posted by: Kristobel at January 28, 2010 9:37 AM