Ampoliros wrote:Well I am a bit of a Puritan...
Sure it has Sci-fi elements but they are not the primary effect of the film. the film is a delivery for his film tech and to make another spectacle that will generate "Largest Grossing Film Evar" Status for Cameron. Sure Cameron is a great filmaker, and I love Aliens (action film with sci-fi elements) and Terminator (Action film with sci-fi elements). Will Avatar change the way films are made forever? Nope. District 9 cost a tenth of what Avatar did, and is a better film. It doesn't require 3D to be worth watching. Avatar does.
To me its the difference between HD and regular tv. Sure things look better in HD but they look good enough on my regular screen so unless I'm a technophile I really don't need it. I want some substance, and Avatar is basically equivalent to the best chain delivered pizza you've ever had. Wow, its good. But its not healthy, and its no where near as good as a home cooked meal or even eating out at your favorite restaurant.
The alternate argument is that "well, just enjoy it for what it is, a visual masterpiece." To that I have to respond that that's not what Cameron created it as, he wanted another Best Picture contender and something that redefines movies completely. The gall of that suggestion, coupled with the fact that he fell into Hollywood's largest and most obvious trap of putting effects not ahead of but completely in the place of plot and story invalidate that motivation. Best Picture contenders usually revolve around films that provide performance and evocation, not spectacle.
For that reason I think that Avatar, the film, should win Best Actor, not Best Picture. Let it dominate the tech awards and receive some recognition in the cinematography and directorial roles. I really don't think it should win those either, since Cameron built an environment he could completely control, unlike all of the other directors who had to use the environment they were given.
At the very least have Kanye West interrupt the winner of Best Director to tell us how Cameron should have won!
The story really isn't that bad, but I can see you've made up your mind about it, so I can't even really recomend that you go see it anyways, because you'll hate it automatically so it truely wouldn't be worth the 12$ for you.
My position is still that the acting and plot were as good or better than 95% of all filmed SF anyways, nowhere near on par with District 9, but that was a bloody masterpiece, and a true rarity in filmed SF. Maybe I should hold all filmed SF to a higher standard, but I choose not to because to me it is a weak genre overall, so I'd rather judge SF films as compared to others within the genre, because otherwise I'd be looking at one "decent" SF film a decade, and I'd really prefer to see and enjoy at least 1 every couple years! That's my take though, I don't take filmed SF seriously at all, so I can 100% understand how someone who does would be upset by this movie.