-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
The thing is Troy, I just can't see this problem being unique to James Cameron. Entertainment is possibly the toughest biz to make it in. NO ONE makes it by being a consomate nice guy. Maybe he should lighten up on the artists a bit, but I'm sure there's a long line of jerks just like him. From what I can tell, Hollywood is predicated on jerkiness.
I agree with this, but I do not think it is unique to directors either. Actors are a pretty pampered bunch of folks. They get a VERY high salary, and they are expected to work hard for that high salary. Some of them are quite lazy, and you literally have to beat, scare or threaten the crap out of them to give you a good performance. Cameron movies are tough on actors because of both the physical and mental demands of the script. If an actor cannot cut it, don't audition for the part. Alfred Hitchcock was also very difficult to work with, but much of his work is considered classic.
I personally would love to work with Cameron. He is no tougher to work for than Tim Burton (at least from a post production view), and I really loved working with Burton on the remix of Nightmare.
As many Hollywood jerks that are in Hollywood, there are many really nice cool folks as well. Hollywood is no different than society as a whole.
-
Sounds right Terrence. Back to the OP, you are entitled to feel and do as you please. I just don't see why you feel so strongly to boycott this dude because he's mean. Cameron has had the misfortune of his activities being broadcast for the world to know.
I wonder though, how many corporate based products or services have you used in the last while? Do you suppose the executives behind them are all tip top fellows?
It could be a tough proposition boycotting based on this type of thing...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Then there are documentaries like The Inconvenient Truth, Food Inc. and Taxi to the Dark Side. Where do they fall?
Feanor,
Quite simply, fascists make war. It is the one activity that most closely matches their beliefs.
I don't consider a documentary in the same class as a movie. I do watch documentaries but I usually rent them. Most of the time when I watch a movie its because I want to escape from reality. My life is much too busy and chaotic to have to think too much while watching a movie. If I want to be taught something, I would rather read a non fiction book!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
Sounds right Terrence. Back to the OP, you are entitled to feel and do as you please. I just don't see why you feel so strongly to boycott this dude because he's mean. Cameron has had the misfortune of his activities being broadcast for the world to know.
I wonder though, how many corporate based products or services have you used in the last while? Do you suppose the executives behind them are all tip top fellows?
It could be a tough proposition boycotting based on this type of thing...
Fair enough.
I've fallen on my sword over my own personal baggage for this enough already. A few more comments and I'm out.
There's always been something about Cameron and his . . . tone . . . that gets under my skin. He comes across as smug and condescending in his public appearances. I know guys that talk just like that and they are douchebags to the core. That combined with the inordinate amount of bad stories about him (way more than any other director I can think of) and stories about how difficult, over-budget and disorganized his shoots are, etc., I dunno, the guy just makes my skin crawl. Yeah, lots of directors have the rep of being a tyrant, but Cameron's the poster-child for it.
I've seen firsthand that in order to rise in the corporate world, the more ruthless you have to be. So, are you saying that it's ok to approve of this guy's behavior because . . . well, because everyone else is doing it anyway? Sorry man, that slope is way too slippery for me.
Make no mistake. I'm not telling anyone to boycott it, I'm just sayin' I'm not gonna pay to see it. Cameron hasn't made a good movie since 1986. 23 years, and now this is being hailed as so visionary and ground-breaking, yet it looks like it's just "Dances with Wolves with tall Smurfs" in front of an animated Roger Dean painting. I've found the hype for this movie loaded with self-aggrandizement and totally overbearing–and I'm sure it's only made worse for me because it's coming from Cameron.
It's my cross to bear.
-
Sorry, to point this out, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
I'm not gonna pay to see it. Cameron hasn't made a good movie since 1986. 23 years, and now this is being hailed as so visionary and ground-breaking, yet it looks like it's just "Dances with Wolves with tall Smurfs" in front of an animated Roger Dean painting. I've found the hype for this movie loaded with self-aggrandizement and totally overbearing–and I'm sure it's only made worse for me because it's coming from Cameron.
... you haven't actually seen it and you are pre-judging it. Last time I took this position about a director who I also happen to find despicable, you certainly weren't shy about rubbing my face in the fact I hadn't seen the movie (Inglorious Basterds) and was not going to see it either - I still haven't. I'm not trying to pick a fight over this, but I dare say what comes around....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
... you haven't actually seen it and you are pre-judging it. Last time I took this position about a director who I also happen to find despicable, you certainly weren't shy about rubbing my face in the fact I hadn't seen the movie (Inglorious Basterds) and was not going to see it either - I still haven't. I'm not trying to pick a fight over this, but I dare say what comes around....
Well, that's why I'm soft-pedaling here (something you never did in the IB thread)!
I have seen several long previews and interviews with Cameron as well as a making-of short film. For not having seen it, I know more about it that I'd like, frankly.
But you're right. I need to see it before I go off on it any further.
-
Fair enough.
And if it's a consolation, I'm still not going to see it this weekend.
-
This movie looks like Halo -v- Ferngully. Olias Of Sunhillow with guns. I'm not saying I won't get dragged into seeing it - its right up my 14yr old son's alley (the target audience). Otherwise, I'm not chomping at the bit. I do think the studio hype machine is way over the top with its "changing moviegoing forever" or whatever. I guess they have to make outrageous claims at the end of a year chock full of forgetable big buget movies where CGI effects dominate while story and acting are optional.
-
Welp...
Sugi, my friend in the Movie Biz (www.spectrum8.com) sez that the reason they're pushing the "revolutionary" aspects of htis film so hard is because it's a "new" brand of 3D vision that's supposed to be "light years" ahead of the crap in the 50's and 60's. I'm even more depressed now because, due to wounds from military service, I don't have bi-nocular vision, I can see out of only one eye at a time. Therefore I don't get the 3D effect, it only looks like an ordinary movie to me... so I guess that's some caish I'll be a saving this month.
Worf
-
Well, although Troy has stated some good reasons not to support this film...curiousity killed the cat...and I'm curious, so kill me. I want to see this. Even if the storyline sucks it looks like visual eye candy to me. How can I not want to see a movie filled with Roger Dean-like space-scapes (can't really call them landscapes)? Perhaps Dean was ripped off, perhaps not. Not having seen the movie, I can't make that judgement.
I'm interested. I don't know if I'll get to see it in the theatre since time is hard to come by and I just hate crowded theatres and overpriced, over-salted popcorn. So maybe we'll wait for the DVD. But one way or another, I'll probably see it.
-
It's the first movie in a long time that allowed me to completely shut my brain off and simply escape into another world. The 3D was fantastic and I think it's the best CGI yet.
-
Anyone else see it yet? Any other thoughts? For those of us experiencing Avatar vicariously, that is....
-
I'll be seeing it after xmas at our local Imax theater. I would say that the tech in the movie would absolutely need an Imax theater to work correctly so if your seeing it at a regular theater, or waiting for the DVD/BlueRay to come out your not going to be seeing the movie as the director intended.
I've seen "Up!" in 3-D and while it was quite remarkable (both as a film AND the 3-D effects), the tech is not fully up to fast movement in 3-D. There's noticable judder when fast action takes place. Probably because of the split frame rate. If they can answer that problem then I'm all for 3-D taking over the theaters.
-
I saw it this evening (in 3D). Outstanding; a must see.
The thing is, Troy's criticisms are pretty much valid. The thing is one cliché after another. Doesn't matter though: the movie simply transcends these quibbles.
Definitely see it in 3D. No, the effect isn't really life-like, but it is used powerfully and it's absolutely the way the director intended that the movie should be seen.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
I saw it this evening (in 3D). Outstanding; a must see.
Ditto. Saw it yesterday in IMAX. It was quite a ride!
rw
-
It would seem I'm the only poster who has actually seen Avatar. Before everyone jumps on the "Avatar is mindless entertainment" train at least watch it.
As a reader of science fiction, (That's books to all who thought of comic books) I usually find most Hollywood depictions of science fiction to be silly, unscientific and totally unbelievable. Even when the story is taken from a good book or short story Hollywood usually screws it up royally. Two examples of Hollywood ruining a good book are Battlefield Earth and Starship Troopers. I must admit that "Troopers" is humorous while having little resemblance to Heinlein's book. Battlefield Earth is just a terrible movie.
Avatar while being a true Hollywood production with all that entails is actually not a bad movie. It is highly derivative and rather formulaic. I have been thinking of it as "Dancing with Aliens". Cowboys in outer space with big blue noble savage natives is probably more appropriate though.
One last comment, the reasoning behind a cripple "driving" an avatar body and not getting a broken spine repaired is explained quite nicely in the movie. I'm waiting for someone else who has actually seen Avatar to comment.
Sorry about the "only one" comment. The rest of my post stands and is supported by other viewers comments.
-
I gave in to the pressure of everyone I know telling me "You gotta see it you hard-headed moron!" and went last night.
My god, it was beautiful. Being such a fan of the Roger Dean aesthetic, I loved the overall design of the film. I can't even begin to stress that enough. Visually, it is a jaw dropper. Cameron is still a douche for not giving him credit, but I hope someday someone corners him in an interview with the question "Were Roger Dean's paintings the inspiration for this film's look?" just to make him squirm.
The articulation in the animated characters faces was amazingly lifelike and is the real technological advance here. I loved the way they had the features of the actors that voiced them, especially the tight t-shirt on the Na Vi version of Sigourney Weaver. Sexiest animated character since Jessica Rabbit.
The ridiculous writing really hurts the film though. The dialogue from almost every character (especially the evil humans) was truly embarrassing. The characters were way too contemporary, or even worse, they seemed dated. Most of them were lifted directly from "T2" or "Aliens." Off the rack, broad cliches, across the board.
My wife, not a sci-fi fan in any way, adored it. She agrees in principal on my assessment about the writing, but like everyone else, she got swept up in the epic visuals.
So, 5 Stars for the visuals, 1 star for the writing makes it a 3 star movie, overall.
-
Well we finally got to see it. Gotta hand it to Cameron, he's delivered what he intended in a big way. With all the hype and spin surround the film it's really was worth seeing. Yes the plot was simple(but effective). Yes the dialog was some time cringe worthy, but the movie really worked. Oh, and every seat was sold out, and for every showing. We actually had to buy our seats a day in advance AND show up 45 minutes early the day of the show to get decent seats.
-
OK, now this is getting weird. I just got asked if I wanted to go see it again and before I even had a chance to think I said "Yes!" I've seen like 3 movies in the theater twice in the last 20 years and I don't even think twice to do it this time? Oh well, a couple more hours on Pandora with the Na'vi. I just hope I don't turn blue.
-
Well our holidays were so busy, that I still haven't seen it. 'Hope there's no spoilers coming.
Ironically, I think I'm the only one left who has not seen it.
-
Nope you ain't....
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Well our holidays were so busy, that I still haven't seen it. 'Hope there's no spoilers coming.
Ironically, I think I'm the only one left who has not seen it.
My friends that own the art theatrre in town (www.spectrum8.com) don't do blockbusters. I hate movie chains and have worked out a barter system with the Spectrum soooo I don't go to the mall much. I'll bust down and see it next weekend probably at the evil mall. Saw Holmes though.
Worf
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
I gave in to the pressure of everyone I know telling me "You gotta see it you hard-headed moron!" and went last night.
Did you see it at an IMAX theater? If not, you need to do so. I felt as though I was still in the story an hour later. It made quite an emotional contact with me.
rw
-
I tried twice this holiday break to see this movie but all the 3D screens are booked days in advance. Our schedule is such that we can't commit days away for a movie. There are only a couple of IMAX screens in and around the Puget Sound and requires quite an effort to see a movie on one of them.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3LB
I tried twice this holiday break to see this movie but all the 3D screens are booked days in advance. Our schedule is such that we can't commit days away for a movie. There are only a couple of IMAX screens in and around the Puget Sound and requires quite an effort to see a movie on one of them.
It's the same way here and we've got several IMAX theaters within a half hour drive. I wouldn't worry about not getting to see it though, as it looks like Avatar will be playing for quite some time.
My advice is that if there's a chance that your not going to be able to buy tickets at the venue then it's best to buy them ahead of time online.
-
Not to be a party-crasher, but any idea when it will be out on disk/BR for purchase?
|