In Which I Discuss My Perspective on the Upcoming Motion Picture, AVATAR

I’ll admit that I might be wrong. Let’s get that out of the way. Ok? Now that it is understood that I might be wrong, let me tell you what I might be wrong about: I don’t think “Avatar” has much of a chance to be The Best Thing Ever or a Game Changer of any kind. In fact, I think there is every reason to believe that “Avatar” will be an amazingly ambitious project cased in am amazingly average film. I’m not talking about box office receipts, but rather about substance and artistic merit.

It is important to recognize “Avatar” for its ambition of being evolutionarily in the way CGI enhanced technology can be used in the context of immense scope. I’m personally lukewarm regarding the ‘look’ of the clips and trailer thus far. If the technology is not ready to make the animation in this film to seem lifelike, then I don’t think this film is ready to be made. But that is not why I think that “Avatar” will be a gloriously pedestrian movie – yet undoubtedly a box office smash.

JarJar helpy masser Lucas nuke the fridge

Much like how sports fans can remark upon a favorite players statistics and skills when debating their merits, I think in many ways one can do the same with a filmmaker. There is no doubt, for example, that George Lucas had an exceptionally high peak as a filmmaker, but there is also little doubt that he is nowhere near the player he once was and, in fact, is probably below league average in production. Steven Spielberg was just as great and had a longer peak, but anyone that watches “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” and then “Minority Report” or “War of the Worlds” will have to conclude that Spielberg’s Hall of Fame peak is at its end and that he is just holding on for the endorsements that he gets paid well to make in his films.

I want to apply the same evaluation to James Cameron (my friends call me ‘Jim,’ damn it) and state at the outset, Cameron has never been a well rounded superstar.

Monetarily the guy cleans up. He is good at filming action – no matter its absurdity – and has brass balls like those of an ugly rat-looking D student asking the honor roll homecoming queen to prom. That mix works in its limited scope of being bigger than life – in painting a gargantuan picture on an unfathomably large canvas. Cameron is scared of no project and should get a lot of credit thrown his way for that. He gets things done.

However, to what success? If I look back at the first “The Terminator,” I see a movie much like “District 9″ in that it had a filmmaker at its helm wanting to tell his story his way. “The Terminator” worked as a chase-filled sci-fi thriller where the plot suggested world changing drama. To see the future of everything-in-the-making with only three principle players was a mind bender. As “The Terminator” obviously leads us to “T2″, I would like to point out various movies as well as paired progressions that Cameron was involved in either as the director or heavily as a producer or writer.

w=writer d=director p=produced na=not involved

The Terminator [1984] (wd)–> T2 [1991] (wdp)
Alien (na) –> Aliens [1986] (wd)
First Blood (na) –> Rambo: First Blood Pt II [1985] (pw)
The Abyss [1989] (wd)
True Lies* [1994] (wd)
Strange Days** [1995] (w)
Titanic [1997] (wdp)
Avatar [2009] (wdp)

*Maybe my favorite Cameron film.
**Maybe my favorite Cameron story.

Cameron's Aliens Killer

What I am about to say might sound like sacrilege to a lot of people, but I think both “Alien” and “The Terminator” were better stories and possessed better filmmaker merit than either of their sequels. I understand that both “Aliens” and “T2″ were huge successes, but I believe much of that is carryover from the first films in the franchise added to Cameron’s ability to manifest mass appeal. Certainly “Alien,” in which Cameron had nothing to do with, is in a class of its own as a space horror movie. “Alien” has the iconic chest burst and a tense, gritty and enclosed feeling that wears one out when watching – it’s an emotional experience. “Aliens” was a great glossy action oriented blockbuster with Sigorney Weaver getting the final kill in a Michael Bay-would-be-proud Transformer exoskeleton that was used as a fork lift when not killing aliens. “Aliens” also had a lol cat and a little girl, which is sweet.

To be clear – gritty, tense, thoughtful, scary sci-fi turned to something bigger and dumber. Remember that previous sentence. Now think of:

The Terminator to T2, First Blood to Rambo: First Blood Part II

Am I crazy for thinking the way I do? In early career building franchises, Cameron made wildly successful sequels where the ingredients for success was to make them more palatable and then add kittens and numerous one-liners. Really. That was his blockbuster legacy going into “Titanic.” That sounds a lot like Michael Bay and still a few steps below product placing, uninteresting latter day Spielberg.

The progression, if one can call it that, of course led to “Titanic.” I am not a “Titanic” hater. I was as amazed as an aged 23 year old male could be at its global appeal, but I saw the movie and thought the ship looked really bad-ass, so I didn’t mind it.  That ship was the heart of the movie. The movie had Leonardo DiCaprio when men hated him and no one had any clue that he would turn into one of the best actors of his generation. It had Kate Winslett before anyone knew that she too would become a great actor, and one known for her steamy sex and nude scenes. It was a hammy story bleeding with melodrama and contrivance. However, it had some of the best visual effects to ever be on the big screen up to that point in cinema history. The special effects were an innovation that combined real life sets and CGI and the two blended splendidly. The materials existed, Cameron just had to harness them. That is the legacy of “Titanic.” As a story it fails at being much more than the soon to follow Michael Bay abolition “Pearl Harbor;” and it fails to capture anything as interesting as the Cameron penned “Strange Days,” or as fun as “True Lies.” It was, however, an amazing technical achievement.

Might we expect more cute cats from Cameron?

If this charts Cameron’s progression, where does that leave “Avatar?” Not surprisingly, I’m pessimistic. I expect a movie of colossal ambition that might have been made before its time. I expect a typical Cameron story, which is not his strength, and I expect a huge blockbuster because at very least the guy knows how to push buttons.  However,  if this movie does not technically live up to its ambition, will that make it a failure in the same way that “Titanic” is a success? It seems to me, with Cameron’s history, a big glossy blockbuster void of subtly or profundity can be expected. I think the data supports that. What if it fails in its technology? It seems that is what everything hinges on when assigning the level of success.

Check out the trailer for “Avatar” below and take time to leave a comment about what you think.

Similar Posts:

• “Avatar” Take-Over Begins | Cast to be in Every Movie Made From Here On Out
• “Avatar” Review | Aaron’s experience.
• [Humor] AVATAR Reviewed in About 18 Minutes
• “Avatar” Review | Ryan Responds to Aaron
• [DVD] Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen
• Why The King’s Speech Deserved Best Picture
• [Trailer] Titanic 2 (2010)

Popularity: 1% [?]