21–30 of 110 posts
Despite it being a rehash of Great Nature vs. Technological Fucking Civilization, Avatar has going for it a much better plot than Titanic , a completely hokey, treacly, implausible film that won eleven Oscars and is still uncontested in terms of box-office revenues .
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Gone with the Wind #1, Star Wars #2, The Sound of Music #3. Titanic #6.
It was a perfect balance in my opinion for what it is. A beautiful film that is opening the doors for fresh and new science fiction (which has been lacking).
What puzzles me is why, with their $237e6 budget, they couldn't afford a decent script.
Many of the reviews of Avatar have focused on the (over-)simplicity of the plot. I don't understand these people. Avatar is packed with so much visual confection that I could barely process half of what I was seeing; I wouldn't have had any brain left over to _understand_ a plot. Who cares about the plot? It's beautiful . Amazingly, wonderfully, brilliantly beautiful.
Complaining about the plot does seem like complaining about the font in a copy of War and Peace. Avatar is a combination of world-building and world-rendering on a scale never before seen.
Many of the reviews of Avatar have focused on the (over-)simplicity of the plot. I don't understand these people. Avatar is packed with so much visual confection that I could barely process half of what I was seeing; I wouldn't have had any brain left over to _understand_ a plot. Who cares about the plot? It's beautiful . Amazingly, wonderfully, brilliantly beautiful.
What puzzles me is why, with their $237e6 budget, they couldn't afford a decent script.
So many expensive movies reportedly have terrible dialogue and scripts that there must be a reason other than the obvious. Maybe it's really, really hard to tell if a script is good before it's filmed? I dunno.
(This is not supposed to be a complete explanation of what led Avatar to lack in original plot and verisimilitude).
Many of the reviews of Avatar have focused on the (over-)simplicity of the plot. I don't understand these people. Avatar is packed with so much visual confection that I could barely process half of what I was seeing; I wouldn't have had any brain left over to _understand_ a plot. Who cares about the plot? It's beautiful . Amazingly, wonderfully, brilliantly beautiful.
Egan gets your point entirely, and laments that it hasn't been put in service of something better. The best technology in the world deserves to be joined with a great script, not a severely impaired one.
So they use a non-risky script, with nothing objectionable in it.
Once the technology matures you can use a better script. The price of better is that sometimes it's worse, that's why it's a risk. If it was a sure thing everyone would do it, but it's not easy to create something great. You can try, and sometimes you'll make it, and other times you'll flop.
Which is too much of a risk for a new technology - better to have something good enough, with little risk.
Remember: Everyone thinks what they are doing is great. But if you are wrong, and it's a flagship product you are doomed. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavens_Gate_(film)
What puzzles me is why, with their $237e6 budget, they couldn't afford a decent script.
So many expensive movies reportedly have terrible dialogue and scripts that there must be a reason other than the obvious. Maybe it's really, really hard to tell if a script is good before it's filmed? I dunno.