The Hot Blog

"As anti-Bush as this film is, it should be very, very popular with the Religious Right."

I'd bet you any amount you care to name that it won't. The faith espoused is a Gaia-theory version that will be opposed tooth-and-nail by the pro-capitalism, pro-Jesus crowd. Not to mention it can easily be read as anti-military.

Once Movieguide.org, opines, we'll know for sure.

That said, I agree with you on basically all counts.l

I'm curious what demographic DP thinks is going to get this to the #2 all-time spot. People over 50 won't care, plain and simple. And 13 year-old girls aren't going to see it again and again for Sam Worthington like they did with Leo in Titanic.

Even with great reviews, I don't understand how this passes The Phantom Menace, which had WAY more crossover appeal and was able to include children.

Not sure if the $750 worldwide prediction meant in ADDITION to the domestic total, or including it. I don't think the former, which would put it in Return of the King territory, is possible either.

Honestly... I don't know what the final take would be. I've been saying for a long while that Avatar brings the goods... but... did you watch it in IMAX 3D? I'm betting the vast majority of reviewers will... but that's not how the vast majority of regular viewers will. Does it still stand up without the technical props?

The second is, we're really comparing apples and oranges when looking at previous box office records - because none of them (bar Dark Knight) were delivered on anything other than standard screens at standard prices. I would agree that Avatar doesn't have the reach of LotR or Star Wars prequels... but it does have the inflated ticket price and the impetus to watch it while its still in theatres because you can't replicate the experience at home. So it may appeal to a smaller demographic (if only slightly) but it may sell similar tickets because of repeat views and those tickets will be more valuable on average - giving it a shot at box office history.

The 2 questions then are - does it still have the same impact on regular screens, and what's the reach and distribution of tickets sold? And I don't think ANYONE has a good answer to those.

Having said that, it's probably easily going to do Trannies2 numbers. But over a billion? Eh... we'll see.

(and, although it's important to you Dave, I don't think the average moviegoer really gives a damn whether they can feel for the CGI Avatars. That's not what this is being sold as, that's not what they're coming in to see)

To lazarus: the key difference between this and phantom menace? PM was a bad movie, and had poor word of mouth, robbing all it's customers in the early weeks. Avatar looks like it will have tremendous word of mouth, and track more like an indie flick (scaled up x 100), instead of dropping 60% of its BO every week. At least that's the theory. Like a slumdog millionaire, it's hoping to be still playing in theatres 6 months from release, especially IMAX, where, frankly, avatar will camp to stay and make money for a good long time.

The $431 million for The Phantom Menace does NOT indicate bad word-of-mouth. I think any filmmaker would LOVE that kind of bad word-of-mouth.

Foamy: They may not think they care, and that may indeed not be why they go to the theater the first time. But that'll be critical for whether or not they go back the second and third times and what they tell their friends.

Sure, a movie with characters you don't care about can do astronomically well (see: Transformers 2), but no matter what people tell you, they didn't go back and see The Dark Knight and Titanic over and over again just because the colors looked pretty.

I think Avatar would do great business regardless, but if audiences are surprised by actually caring about the avatars -- therefore, all the more about the story as a whole -- the movie steps into a whole higher box office category from what it would have been.

Whether that's enough to make #2 at the box office, though, I don't know.

(I basically just copied and pasted off of my comments at InContention so I'm sorry if you read both of those places, but meh. It's 2am)

It sure is one helluva experience, isn’t it? A physically bruising, emotionally-charged (to steal a cliched phrase) and powerful piece of CINEMA. A lot of people huff and puff over lines like “you have to see it on the big screen”, but with this you really have to.

Cameron and his crew have put so much on screen here that it’s impossible to soak it up. Visually it is epic in every possible way and the 3D work is astonishing. Clearly the best use of 3D we’ve ever seen (and not just during the CGI scenes, but the live action stuff as well). The whole picture is just so beautifully rendered though. Those nighttime sequences are some of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen (on film or not).

In regards to performances, Stephen Lang was great but I thought best in show was Zoe Saldana. Sigourney Weaver has some really great moments – a cinch for best “character introduction” of the year! – and Sam Worthington is just ace. He knows a lot of the lines he’s saying are hokey, but he gets by with saying them by being so gosh darn cool.

Also: The movie is Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers set on another planet. Really. Everything about the way the story flows up to and including the two parallel action set pieces at the end that take up such a long amount of the running time.

The film’s only real negative (since it’s silly to complain about a recycled plot or hokey dialogue) is Giovani Ribisi who falls into Billy Zane territory of cardboard villainy, but without Zane’s campiness.

It's hard to compare Avatar to other Cameron pics though. His other films are either set in the "modern day" and have the action spread fairly evenly throughout (T2, True Lies) are are claustrophobic in their scale (Aliens, if that makes sense). Cameron has never had such a big sandpit to play around in so some of the action sequences at the end can, at times, appear messy, but it's great to able to watch them and know where everybody is and what they're doing.

Best Picture? Bloody oath it should be! Er, nominated I mean.

Oh, and I should say that I, at least, definitely felt for the Na'Vi. The scene with the tree (you'll know it) and the reactions thereafter are potent and hit the gut.

Well, at least we know there's no way Cameron put any political sub-text in his 3-D action film.

Foamy: the screening both David and I were at was NOT Imax. Not even bullshit AMC Imax. But it was 3D.

Interesting headline about it on the main MCN page: "The First Film To Evoke The War In Iraq That Will Make A Mint"

Did we forget the film's most obvious antecedent, Revenge of the Sith?

I have had some trouble with commenting... oy.

Anyway... yeah... the screening last night was in Real-D. That is their primary output for 3D. They will take as many IMAX screens as they can. I believe the first screening in IMAX is next week.

Thing is, I think this will play with the 3D and without it. It's subtle 3D. But it's a lot of content. My guess is that IMAX of this film will be a mind f*** of epic proportions.

"Also: The movie is Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers set on another planet. Really. Everything about the way the story flows up to and including the two parallel action set pieces at the end that take up such a long amount of the running time."

Way to ruin the movie for me, KCam. I hope you're happy. On the other hand, IO is doing handstands and cartwheels as I type.

Hearing that the movie ends with action ruins it for you? Wow.

Now, having it compared to The Two Towers ruins it for me. I loathe TTT. It's on my list of worst movies ever.

It's all about the Breathless Hype! It's all about the Corporate Synergy! It's all about the Name-Checking! It's all about the Pro-War Propaganda! Plus it's all about the Worldwide Day-and-Date Release!

Why else does the NewsCorp-owned studio do this? The public is not to blame; they have no choice but to buy what they are told is the most appropriate picture to see.

@Dukjin Im: "Avatar" is not going to be playing for months on end. It has the weekend before Xmas, then a 10-day period where every day will be like a Saturday. Once the holidays are over and children are back in school the box office will fall off bigtime -- and that is the ugly truth.

Chucky, you're mentally ill and should be on medication.

"Now, having it compared to The Two Towers ruins it for me. I loathe TTT. It's on my list of worst movies ever. "

Oh, well.... hmm.... oh-kay.

FOTR, TTT, ROTK, TITANIC, even stuff like I AM LEGEND and KING KONG -- there are plenty of big-budget spectacle movies that play well past New Year's Day.

I'm also confused how someone could hate TTT but not FOTR or ROTK? Or you do dislike them as well, Blackcloud?

Any movie as technically well-made as TTT is automatically a better film than, say, Robot Monster or Psyched by the 4-D Witch or Troll 2. Let's get our criteria in order here.

Phantom Menace had bad word of mouth? Say what you want about its quality but people/families/Ewoks did seem to enjoy it... Here are the first six weekend drops:

-20%, +3% (Memorial Weekend, -20% for the 3 day portion), -36%, -22%, -26%, -25%.

How many tent poles in the last decade have held that well? Probably not many...

If Avatar holds like that, $350mil is the floor.

The common narrative these days is that everyone and their dog disliked The Phantom Menace as soon as they walked out of the theatre. I'm sure that's true for a few, but I don't think the backlash on it really started untill it his video and people watched it without the burden of the hype machine bearing down.

And yeah, just on a technical level, TTT has to be better than literally a few thousand films, easy.

avatar ROCKS (not so sure the 'drill, baby, drill' crowd is gonna dig big badasss hippie jim's stunning epic anti-war environmentalist romance tho, DP)

"(and, although it's important to you Dave, I don't think the average moviegoer really gives a damn whether they can feel for the CGI Avatars. That's not what this is being sold as, that's not what they're coming in to see)"

i beg to differ in a big way, foamy; perhaps the biggest hurdle 'avatar' has to overcome is the disconnect many people seem to feel when seeing clips of those 'blue cartoon people', so the fact that the na'vi are so ALIVE and so relatable (and neytiri is so fucking bonza, another heroine for the ages from cam) is EXTREMELY important to the movie's success

How was Michelle Rodriguez in this? Always feel that Hollywood has never known quite what to do with her and i'm hoping that Avatar is a springboard for leading roles.

"I'm also confused how someone could hate TTT but not FOTR or ROTK? Or you do dislike them as well, Blackcloud?"

I like FOTR a lot, especially the extended version. I'm lukewarm towards ROTK. It has its moments, but to me it falls a bit flat. TTT has always struck me as bloated, tedious, and hopelessly misguided. I don't know what went wrong between FOTR and TTT, but something did. And don't even get me started on the extended version of TTT, which more or less defines excruciating.

Leah- Glad you loved "Avatar" as much as I did.
Check out my comments on the film on an earlier "Avatar" thread.
Rodriguez is fine, and I haven't really been a fan since "Girlfight."
Her "feisty Latina badass" act got tired real fast.
But she tones it down a notch or two here, and is actually pretty likable onscreen for the first time in years.

"How was Michelle Rodriguez in this?"

Probably because Vasquez from Aliens is too old now.

(blackc, nothing 'went wrong', that's nonsensical! ALL the films were shot at the same time and certainly not in order and with the exact same production values, so your problem with TTT must be with the story itself or the editing, since it is impossible that 'something went wrong' after FOTR because scenes for all 3 films were shot at random all over the place and nobody snuck on set just during 'ttt' shoots to sprinkle 'shitty' dust on everything)

movieman, i didn't get a chance to read the other threads yet, will do!

I somewhat prefer TTT because it's like a long pause in the action, especially extended cut, which is the only way to view the films. How can you not love the scene with Treebeard and friends rising from the forest to take on Sauramon?

jinx, c, you owe me a coke

Where does one get a bottle of "shitty dust"?

(That phrase is definitely going to be added to my vocabulary)

Sounds like they simply said the structure was like the two towers not the actual quality.

And I am with Blackcloud about FOTR being the best. I thought they all declined with quality as they went on and that ROTK's oscar win was a joke. Fellowship was a more intimate movie, a midievel Walter Hill film where a group of guys try to go from point a to point b by cracking every skull in between. Two Towers and King were pompous exercises in mired in the inner workings of Middle Earth politics. By the time the forward moving plot started I was completly out of the movie and checking my watch.

As for Avatar I wasn't planning on seeing it but after these reviews its going to the top of the list. See if the rest of America changes its mind.

i have it on good authority that michael bay has a big fucking sandpit chock full of shitty dust at his house, storymark

That, I believe.

Well...let's give 20th Century Fox a round of applause folks! After two and a half years and 38 consecutive live-action films (yes...38 films below 60 on Rottentomatoes/Metacritic), they have once again released a live-action film with overall positive reviews!!! Their upcoming slate after Avatar still looks as HORREndous as it has the last few years (Alvin 2, The Tooth Fairy and Columbus's Harry Potter ripoff kick off the post-Avatar crapfest)...but maybe this movie will make the retarded child of the majors comprehend that good film-making can occasionally translate into improved revenue. And maybe it will keep them from sticking their paws in movies they've been accused of ruining like "City of Ember" and "Wolverine."

Either way, I'll be first in line to see this!

Well...let's give 20th Century Fox a round of applause folks! After two and a half years and 38 consecutive live-action films (yes...38 films below 60 on Rottentomatoes/Metacritic), they have once again released a live-action film with overall positive reviews!!! Their upcoming slate after Avatar still looks as HORREndous as it has the last few years (Alvin 2, The Tooth Fairy and Columbus's Harry Potter ripoff kick off the post-Avatar crapfest)...but maybe this movie will make the retarded child of the majors comprehend that good film-making can occasionally translate into improved revenue. And maybe it will keep them from sticking their paws in movies they've been accused of ruining like "City of Ember" and "Wolverine."

Either way, I'll be first in line to see this!

movieman, I posted this in another thread, but will do so again, since this one seems more active: Celine Dion doesn't sing the theme song. It's Leona Lewis.

So, how many days after Avatar opens will Halo get a budget and greenlight?

how many days after Avatar opens will a real studio and director attach itself to Ender's Game again?

anyone want to make an over/under?

I think Studios will wait to see how it performs through new years and then in January and February we'll see a ton of sci-fi acquisitions put into development. projects like Halo and Ender's Game that will benefit a lot from Avatar tech (they don't have to worry about finding a child actor anymore, do they?) with big third act action set pieces will probably be the first scifi titans to get snapped up.

Christian, the extended cuts are most decidedly NOT the only way to see the LOTR films. TTT, yes. FotR works much better in its slimmed-down, faster-moving version. RotK is a slog at 4 hours, much more manageable at 3.25.

And color me psyched for Avatar. Trailers didn't do anything for me, but I will ALWAYS give Cameron the benefit of the doubt with stuff like this. Nobody in the world does the sci-fi action thing better.

Obviously havent't seen Avatar.

Will.

Interested to see who is right. Cameron is obviously a gifted filmmaker who has made some of my favourite films. Not the brightest man in the world (Jesus' lost tomb, anyone) or the subtlest when it comes to his messages...but obviously skilled.

Will the very few right wing critics go too hard on the film and not give it the credit it is due due to its oft stated and obvious left/hippie/Marxist/Gaia the earth goddess politics.

Or are will the left wing critical establishment forgive bad dialogue, cheesy overracting, preachy- Oliver Stone is more subtle- politics and no where near as photo-realistic FX as we are told because of the films oft stated and obvious left/hippie/Marxist/Gaia the earth goddess politics.

All I can say is that I have yet to see a pic/trailer/motion image of the Na'vi that does not look like a creepy cartoon.

I find it hard to believe it will hit the same zeitgeist as The Dark Knight to be the number two of all time. It seems nowhere near as subtle politically and I agree with LYT that that the average American of religious belief (be it Christian, Jewish or Muslim) will rally around Gaia the way 'ol Jimbo wants us too.

The Dark Knight hit a nerve with everyone because Nolan crafted the film with metaphors that could appeal to the left and right. He said so and is brilliant. Cameron explicitly is making no metaphor. Harder to get behind.

My prediction is it is a hit. A solid hit...but nowhere near number 2 of all time. Too ideological and isolating.

It only gets to that number with multiple repear business. And if the film is as ideological as even its biggest supporters say...most will find it hard to stomach.

"So, how many days after Avatar opens will Halo get a budget and greenlight?

how many days after Avatar opens will a real studio and director attach itself to Ender's Game again?"

--

Both of those would be welcome developments. I'd also like to see Ridley Scott's adaptation of FOREVER WAR fast-tracked too (since he apparently wants to shoot it in 3-D after seeing parts of AVATAR.)

"Cameron....Not the brightest man in the world"

james cameron is extremely intelligent, you fucking moron. you must have gotten yourself confused with the smart canadian

and why don't you just wait until you've seen the movie before spouting off at the mouth like a pontificating jackass. oops, too late

Out of curiosity, Nicol, did you think Revenge of the Sith was too politically left? I as a liberal totally saw it as a Bush/Cheney slam in many aspects; Lucas says he had Nixon in mind. But it didn't seem to hurt the box office much -- I even read conservative columnists who tried to find themes more to their liking in there.

It's King Kong. No one will care next week. It will be lucky to make fucking Bourne money. Let alone fucking New Moon money. David Poland once again demonstrates how out of fucking touch he has become, but he at least has his own NICHE to do it it.

The kids will not care.

The geeks are already torn.

Girls? Really?

2nd highest grossing my ass.

io, have you seen it?

just out of curiosity, where did this 'king kong' comparison i keep seeing come from? bizarre

IO: Jealous, much?

Re: "Audiences don't give a damn about the Na'vi"

I should clarify - yes, being able to relate to the characters goes a huge way to making the film enjoyable.

BUT it's a post-facto effect - audiences don't get that experience until AFTER they've forked out their $X. In terms of word of mouth, it's around 3rd or 4th (after "Holy shit! 3D visuals!" and "Holy crap! Battle scenes!"). There's no expectation for non-industry people to relate to the characters - virtually none of the marketing has been about the characters or story. In terms of the purchase decision, it's effect in comparison to what the film is being sold as ("Feast for the Eyes by The Dude Who Did Titanic") is reasonably minimal.

Does it have an impact? Sure. Does it contribute to the films success? Yes. But it's NOT the primary determining factor in selling tickets. In comparison to bleeding-edge visuals, they really don't give a crap.

I should add LYT, nice to hear it DOES stand up without IMAX. Every time Cameron said "This is how the movie should be viewed..." I winced. ;)

those are big assumptions to make, foamy. WOM will be crucial for 'avatar' and people are perfectly capable of expressing more than 2 thoughts about what makes a movie special; i'd bet that a connection to the animated characters previously thought unlikely and pooh-poohed by many people will rank high on the list of reasons the film is worthwhile in WOM, esp for the demographic beyond teen boys

(why wouldn't the film stand up without IMAX? it wasn't filmed in IMAX. cameron has said that the movie should ideally be seen in the preferred format of 3-D)

Leahnz,

As usual, you bring the angry and the bitter too soon. Take a pill...chill, relax. Cut the vulgarity and I'll take you more seriously.

Anyone who genuinely believes he found the lost tomb of Jesus...ain't that bright.

LYT,

No, I did not find Revenge of the Sith too left politically. Lucas is a democrat and clearly has several lines that echo Bush/Cheney. Nevertheless, overall they are a very very small part of the film and the Star Wars cannon as a whole which has many consevative themes. Star Wars for the most part stays away from partisanship and is all the better for it.

But even that doesn't matter. Left wing themes are fine too. I love Oliver Stone...everything from Alexander to Born on the Fourth of July. I just question if maybe Cameron went too far in preaching and left the story at home. If what I am reading from the fans of the film is correct...this film makes Stone look subtle. American (and Canadian) soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq and I wonder if people will cheer Cameron's teenage fantasy of the evil American soldier who must die at the hand of...the Na'vi. Most people (including the average Democrat) do not hate the common soldier as much as the Hollywood left (crix included here).

It is a valid question. I do respect Cameron though and love virtually all of his films (Titanic the lone exception). I will see the film in IMAX 3D over Christmas and give it a chance.

It is a valid question and I'll be interested in your response when you do see it. It should be noted that the soldiers in AVATAR are more akin to Blackwater, a for-hire group protecting the interests of a mining corporation.

"Out of curiosity, Nicol, did you think Revenge of the Sith was too politically left? I as a liberal totally saw it as a Bush/Cheney slam in many aspects; Lucas says he had Nixon in mind. But it didn't seem to hurt the box office much -- I even read conservative columnists who tried to find themes more to their liking in there."

The Bush/Cheney reading is plausible, but I see allusions to Napoleon III and the collapse of the Roman Republic in there as well. You may also throw in the demise of Weimar as well. And all three of those interpretations are, historically speaking, more valid than the Bush/Cheney one, since in those three cases a democracy (or popular government, at least) was overthrown and replaced by a tyranny. As far as I can tell, that hasn't happened yet in the United States. (Not unless you think Obama is some sort of crytpo-Muslim socialist communist Antichrist.) Don't forget that the ostensible villains in the second and third prequels form the Confederacy of Independent Systems. That name makes clear allusions to American history, ones that have nothing to do with Bush.

The problem with the whole dialogue about whether Sith was a critique of Bush or not - an let's be honest, most attempts to portray it as such was simple internet stupidity - was that it originated in the unconquerable tendency to assume that all historical allusions allude to the present. Padme laments the demise of the Republic. Anti-Bush nutroots believe Bush wants to kill the Republic. Ergo, Padme laments Bush. If you want to know why it's possible to accuse bloggers of being long on passion and indignation, and short on logic, there's a textbook example. The only reason this gets any attention is because it's Star Wars. If it's some tiny arthouse movie, no one cares. Historical awareness, on the whole, only extends to last week. Therefore, by default, the present becomes the analogue for every historical reference that can possibly be made, because that's how far back the historical memory that can be applied reaches. When you have no sense of the past, everything begins to look like the present.

As for "Avatar," it seems this aspect of the film is much more salient than it was in Sith. There it was a sidenote at best. Here my impression is that it is a major plot element. The comparisons may not be so apt, if that winds up the case.

Speaking of which, I hope Cameron's take on contemporary politics is slightly more sophisticated than the analysis of class relations he offered in his last movie, one that if it climbed for an eternity would not reach the heights of the juvenile.

Leah: True, it's a fairly big assumption, but so is "will rank high on the list of reasons the film is worthwhile in WOM, esp for the demographic beyond teen boys". ;)

I'm still standing by the fact that, from what I have heard from non-industry people, characters are a completely non-factor. They haven't been prepped for it, they have no expectations, it's not on their radar. As far as WOM goes, I think it'll be bundled in with "it's good" - sure it'll register on people who have seen it and they may even comment on it, but people listening to word of mouth wont be looking for that comment - they may read/hear that characters are good, but you get over 7000 advertising messages per day, you only pay attention to certain ones. It's just not what they've been told to pay attention to.

I'm not saying it has no impact, but my opinion is that it's not in the top 3 of the selling points. But, hey, we all have different opinions here. ;)

I like Nicol, but when it comes to films and popular culture, what is this new, annoying "Medved"-ing within conservative popcult commentary? Wherein films now are not judged on quality, or even by the old conservative sticking point of raunchiness, content or "family friendliness"... but now upon their level of gung-ho patriotism?

Maybe I just read too much Big Hollywood (or Goldstein's blog, which features those guys seemingly every third column), or watch too much Fox, so my perspective is skewed on how prevalent this is. But after reading some of the above, or a certain rival film blogger (rhymes with Bells) projecting his Che Guevera fantasies on Cameron's movie... Man, I can already see (if it's not up yet) the John Nolte or Brietbart spiel on BH about how this is "typical libtard Socialist propaganda deriding our valorous troops because Hollywood hates American values."

It's annoying reading these otherwise smart people so demented by this paranoid idea that there's a vested conspiracy within the borders of LA County to besmirch this Leave it to Beaver vision of conpone "Americana" that barely even exists. You guys are more in the know than I am... tell me, are there really weekly card-carrying Pinko meetings where all the top execs and directors like Cameron plot how best to mock the military and interject enviro themes in their upcoming films?

At the most "nefarious," I'd guess this supposed strain of "anti-military, anti-Christian" Hollywood "hostility" is more akin to simple cluelessness. As movies are generally made and bankrolled by rich white guys from Westside L.A. and simply didn't grow up with a lot of family in the service and such.

Now every time a "Brothers," "Hurt Locker," or "The Messenger," or now, apparently "Avatar" comes along, I have to sit there bristling with the unwanted Nicol D/Big Hollywood Scorecard o' Patriotism in my head against my will. "Oops, that soldier said the F word. Hollywood hates America." "Ryan Phillippe doesn't want to get re-upped, Hollywood hates America." "Tobey Maguire came back from the War and isn't smiling and downing apple pie, Hollywood hates America." "The military dude is stubborn and the New Age blue people are in love, Hollywood hates America."

Like, Christ, can't anything just be a movie, a story, a shades-of-gray bit of conflict without it being some indictment of "traditional values"? I mean, Michael Bay or Ridley Scott could make a Fascistic action movie about an ass-kicking right-wing U.S. prez who guns down everyone in America below the $200,000-a-year line while Jesus appears over his shoulder giving the thumbs up, and if it's a good movie, I couldn't care less about its maker's politics.

Of course, reading over christian's anti-Aliens ranting from the past week, left-leaning critics and pop cult observers are every bit as guilty of this, perennially squeamish about violent and especially themes of revenge. Always bristling at the sight of militaristic might and finding something like "Black Hawk Down" too queasy for their touchy sensibilities.

But most everybody in Hollywood or anywhere "loves the troops," I'm all for the military, but when I see a movie where a soldier returns home and has PTSD or doesn't want to go back for a second term in some sun-scorched hellhole, I don't insta-reject it on the grounds that it's "a slap in the face" to traditional values and our brave men in uniform. It's a movie, that needs conflict, so as to be interesting. And it's not exactly like every soldier is all sunshine and apple pie 24/7.

The very fact that Avatar is apparently the tree-huggin'est thing ever made AND a kick-ass, militaristic techno action movie -- that alone ought to imply we shouldn't take its politics too seriously.

Leah, it comes from Mendelson, and he seems to have a point. The point remains: THIS ALREADY HAPPENED. It has nothing to do with the movie's quality. It has to do with what's going on out there, and out there could give a shit about this movie. This has already happened, it should be happy to make 200m, and that will be that jack.

EOTW, daft much? Jealousy? Nah. He's just out of step, and has been for two years now. I just love to point it out. Why? He's a daffy bird.

Well, this film is still not on the radar of my sea of young, teen boys...not one was really interested in seeing it or hearing about it as they prepped for a dance tonight. BUT, with that said, I acknowledge that all it takes is one, "Dude! This sh** is SICK!" for the WOM snowball to begin (that's what happened with District 9).

I've gone from "skip it"...based on trailers and overhype...to "see it" based on ++ reviews. Plus, T2...and even Titanic...Cameron just effin rules.

Blackcloud: the Bush/Cheney reading of Sith comes up primarily because of the "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy" line, seemingly based on Bush's "line about if you;re not with us, you aid the terrorists.

As for "if it's some tiny arthouse movie, no-one cares"...I give you "Death of a President."

Grady- Mea culpa!
In my rush to hit the men's room, I missed some of the closing credits at my screening. But damn: Leona sure sounded just like Celine, didn't she?
Or maybe I was just in a "Titanic"/nostalglic/warm-and-fuzzy frame of mind.
(Using Dion would have definitely been uber anti-cool cool, though.)

I also want to point out that I've never had much love for "The Abyss," which was maybe my most anticipated movie of 1989 and at the time a heartbreaking disappointment. One that I saw three times in theaters trying to convince myself it was the Die Hard-meets-Aliens-meets-2001 masterpiece I had expected.

I still think it's lumpy, misshapen (though maybe not as misshapen as True Lies), and the "ragtag crew" is mostly unappealing... but man, I threw that in the other night, and that is one hell of a Michael Biehn Tour de Force. Any bit with him going apeshit in that awesome beret and walrus stache, paranoid eyes darting around and chewing the scenery... pure awesomeness.

And leahnz won't want to hear it, but if it's indeed true Michael Bay worships that movie, it totally makes sense now. Hadn't seen it in years, but was struck by how closely the character arcs, lighting schemes, and production design were replicated in "Armageddon."

Of course Michael Bay is aware that there are other colors but BLUE to include in his palate, but still...

Lex, seeing it three times in theaters may have been your mistake. The direct-to-video director's cut of The Abyss is the only worthwhile version.

"Blackcloud: the Bush/Cheney reading of Sith comes up primarily because of the 'If you're not with me, then you're my enemy' line, seemingly based on Bush's 'line about if you;re not with us, you aid the terrorists.'"

Bush: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." One of many variants of the "with us or against us" phrasing. The most famous, surely, being "He who is not with me is against me," uttered by some obscure carpenter in Palestine a few hundred years ago. Anyway, if that's all there is in Sith to hang one's anti-Bush hat on, you are going to be picking it up the floor. Not to mention Obi-Wans response that "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" apparently violates everything we have learned about the Force in the preceding five and three-quarters films. Besides which, it is itself an absolute statement, so either Obi-Wan is confused, or he's a closet Sith. Or maybe Sith only see the truth one way, whereas how Jedi see it depends on their point of view. As I was saying, not a lot to hang one's hat on, either as anti-Bush criticism, or as an exegesis of Jedi philosophy.

It's not all there is, just the most blatant thing. But if you've been paying attention, I doubt anything else I could say on topic would be new to you.

Only that if it's a stretch to connect Sith to Bush, than it is with Avatar as well. If not, then not.

"As usual, you bring the angry and the bitter too soon. Take a pill...chill, relax. Cut the vulgarity and I'll take you more seriously."

oh predictable, predictable NIC

and ftr, i'd fucking rather fucking die a thousand fucking horrible fucking deaths than be 'taken fucking seriously' by a world class fuckhead like you! and if by 'angry' you mean 'laughing' at your inane predictability as usual then you're spot-on

and yet again, you don't know what you're talking about. cameron never claimed to have found the lost tomb of jesus. as usual, WATCH, LISTEN, and THEN flap your lips

"not give it the credit it is due due to its oft stated and obvious left/hippie/Marxist/Gaia the earth goddess politics."

oft-stated? MARXIST?

YOU JUST SAID YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT. and referring to 'avatar' as marxist is profoundly stupid

"And if the film is as ideological as even its biggest supporters say...most will find it hard to stomach"

MOST? yes, because MOST people think like you...(shudder)

"Leah, it comes from Mendelson, and he seems to have a point"

oh, well thanks io, i still don't get it, seems arbitrary as hell

"And leahnz won't want to hear it, but if it's indeed true Michael Bay worships that movie, it totally makes sense now. Hadn't seen it in years, but was struck by how closely the character arcs, lighting schemes, and production design were replicated in "Armageddon.""

hey, bay can worship at the alter of CAM till the cows come home for all i care, so long as he keeps his shitty dust well away from big jim

Leah, I agree that you should calm down a tad and try to not reflexivly post whenever Nicol posts (yeah, I have a hard time doing it too) because it's kind of what he wants. Yeah, he's a pompous ass. We all know it, let's move on.

And I love that the ONLY time I ever hear ANYONE refer to Cameron's Jesus project in any context is from Nicol.

Hey IOI, wanna make a bet that Avatar crosses the $200 million mark? I'm unemployed, but I'd wager any amount of money on that one.

"Only that if it's a stretch to connect Sith to Bush, than it is with Avatar as well. If not, then not."

I found the Bush stuff in Sith thin, as stated. As for Avatar (which I have not seen), you could be reading more into it than is there, or it really could be there. I'll see. I intend to.

Wasn't Lucas literally quoted as saying that he thought of the Emperor as Cheney?

This is way off topic, but figured I'd ask it here since there's no decent BYOB going. Has anyone seen/rented Mann's LA Takedown? I was reminded of watching Heat, and that I wanted to see it at some point. Doesn't look easily available on like amazon or whatever to buy. So what I'm wondering is - is it worth buying? And where is it available?

I should barely dare ask this after leah's last post directed at ND, so I'll preface it by saying I'm asking in all good cheer and with a certain affectionate bemusement:

Are you currently, or were you recently, dating James Cameron? Or somehow related to him?

I've seen parents who aren't as fiercely protective of their infants as you are of "Big Jim."

Hey, the guy's great, but I don't think anyone's entirely beyond reproach. With his billions and his legacy, I'm sure he can handle a little Internet grousing (that he'll never read), so it's sort of endearing -- maybe scary? -- that the split-second someone mildly gripes about one miniscule aspect of his body of work, you're throwing down like Calamity Jane taking all comers.

Lex,

I like you too and give you props for many of the ballsy opinions you have.

Just to clarify my own.

Yes, films should be judged on quality...not the jingoism or patriotism. But they should also be judged on quality and not on how lefty or marxist or PC they are.

That is the great irony. In films schools...you are taught quality - does not - matter. You are taugh to evaluate film by how left wing it is. That is what we are seeing now and why websites like Big Hollywood exist and get so many commenters (they are in the hundreds for the Avatar review). People are seeing that great films like The Dark Knight which are percieved as "right wing" get no Oscar noms while PC rubbish like Milk and Crash take home awards.

Cameron is very talented. I love his work and will see Avatar. But I wonder if so many of the raves are coming from the overt PC nature of the film or from quality itself. I have seen too many great but not PC films trashed or neglected from awards in recent years while PC drivel that does not hold snuff get claimed as great.

Maybe Avatar is great and Big Hollywood is going too hard on it. But...we also have to entertain the possibility that the opposite could be true. That it is not great...but they love the PC nature of the flick and will pass on its differences. After all...that is the default position for film criticism nowadays.

I personally find it odd that all of the things that people now criticize The Phantom Menace for (too much CG animation, cheezy dialogue, cliches etc.) are now being given a pass for Avatar.

We will see. I will probably see it before Christmas.

Everyone else,

Sith is not PC junk. Lucas obviously studied historical downfalls of empires and as one who has a poli-sci degree, I must say he did well. The scapegoating of separatists to gain power is something that the Liberal Party of Canada did for the better part of 10 years to keep power. It is common in Empires. The few lines of "Bush" dialogue in Sith do not deter from this.

Leahnz,

Cut down the vulgarity and I will take you seriously. Other than that you come off as irrational, angry and bitter.

Of course it is predictable that I would say that...it is what you are.

Blackcloud,

"As for "Avatar," it seems this aspect of the film is much more salient than it was in Sith. There it was a sidenote at best."

Exactly...I have no problem with a film being left or right. Apocalypse Now is left and one of the greatest film ever made. But everything in degrees. It would appear based on the reviews that are positive that Avatar is left wing up the wazoo! Again...this is based on the reviews that love it. That hammer you over the head message is what might hamper it and keep it from being real art.

i think i posted this in another thread somewhere but if people want to know cameron's thoughts on the film's subtext (since he sorta wrote and directed it and all), this interview with some french dude is quite illuminating:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbec8u_cameron-decrypte-son-film-avatar-ci_shortfilms

"Leah, I agree that you should calm down a tad and try to not reflexivly post whenever Nicol posts (yeah, I have a hard time doing it too) because it's kind of what he wants. Yeah, he's a pompous ass. We all know it, let's move on."

i'm perfectly calm, jeff. and i most certainly do not post whenever nicol posts, not even close. i've laughed off numerous unprovoked jabs in the ribs from the canadian gassbag

and if i do have something to say re: one of nicol's predictable passive/aggressive rants, i say it. i don't filter myself according to what other commenters here might think like it's some contest of who can be the most clever, basically i don't give a shit, i just say what i think

Martin... It's not available ANYWHERE, though you can find extensive clips of the highlights on YouTube. Check Scott Plank bringin' the big-time charisma as Vincent Hanna.

"In films schools...you are taught quality - does not - matter. You are taugh to evaluate film by how left wing it is."

Not true (that settles that).

Nicol, Leah is a very nice, rational, polite person to pretty much everyone on this blog, except yourself (and people who dis New Zealand and/or its film industry). The truth of the matter is that the two of you are oil and water to each other.

Leah - not to say that you're irrational, but rather that like me, you're more easily susceptible to Nicol's provocations.

cool i guess Poland relented on Lex. I was just about to stop visiting here, heh.

Jeff, it's been three days.

Are you going to welcome me back or not?

Also: Nicol IS kind of right about the film school thing. I don't think it's accurate that we were taught to praise films based on "how left wing they are," but there is definitely a Marxist bent to much serious Film Studies discourse.

A lot of easy, often unfounded perspectives are bent to adhere to the lazier tenets of Film Theory, reading a critique of patriarchy, capitalism and gender roles into movies where it only tangentially exists if at all, and dismissing films with a more traditionalist bent, falling back on easy terms like "reassurance" and "repression" and ascribing some level of insidious fascism to politically right of center or even perfectly genteel movies.

So... LA Takedown, completely unavailable? I google it and there's some results on the DVD, but it's like foreign or dead links, weird. I guess it's either available in another region, or someone has copies off the TV airing that they've been selling. Very annoyed that Mann hasn't made this available in a high quality version.

"In films schools...you are taught quality - does not - matter. You are taugh to evaluate film by how left wing it is."

Whaaa? Not remotely true, in my experience. Do you have a film school degree, Nicol? I do. I will agree that there is a bias toward foreign cinema versus the perception of mainstream Hollywood, but I don't recall politics ever entering into any of my classes, except the one on censorship, where political correctness came in for the same amount of scrutiny as Michael Medved.

uh, you're repeating yourself, NIC. there must be some good clinics there in canada to treat onset dementia

(no worries jeff)

If it's left-wing to state that forcibly relocating an entire civilization so that you can have the mineral rights to their land is bad, then Avatar is left-wing.

Hi, Lex. What do you want, a kiss?

I went to film school, and while it's true that many (certainly not all) of the professors I had were strong lefties, Nicol's stated-as-fact comment, "you are taught quality - does not - matter. You are taugh to evaluate film by how left wing it is" is untrue in my experience. It simply never happened. Maybe it's because, unlike Nicol, I chose not to attend Joseph Stalin Peoples' Film School of Toronto, I have no idea what they do there.

In fact, if you asked me what does get taught at film school, I'd have to answer "Not much" beyond the important essentials of how to read a light meter and operate Pro Tools. I would have KILLED for more actual discussion on film aesthetics and themes and stuff like that, but it rarely ever happened.

"'In films schools...you are taught quality - does not - matter. You are taugh to evaluate film by how left wing it is.'

Not true (that settles that)."

Jeff, have you ever read film theory/film studies stuff? I have encountered a smattering of it, and while that's not enough to indict the whole field, what Nicol describes does exist. Good lord, some of it is the zaniest, most infantile leftist, post-modern bullshit you can ever have the misfortune of reading. And unlike traditional humanities departments, film studies is a recent discipline, so all the post-modern bumf (Foucault, Derrida, all those frauds and charlatans) got in on the ground floor. Now, does that mean every film prof is as Nicol describes? No. But it sure as hell does mean that such people do exist. I have no doubt that Nicol has met such people. I have, too, and believe me, what he says about judging something by how left wing it is is accurate. The rightwing caricature of the tenured Marxist radical has a basis in reality. Hell, one was the primary reader of my dissertation. (Really good guy, btw.) I had plenty of profs who didn't make a big deal of politics, but overall my department certainly leaned left. As did most of my classmates, some of whom must wake up every morning teling themselves, "Today, I'm going to be the best caricature of a left-wing, bien pensant, PC humanities grad student I can be." Good grief. On the other hand, we had a bunch who were pretty conservative, too, more than I would have expected. But apart from one prof who was new when I took her class and rammed Marx down our throat every week, real-world politics had little impact on daily life in the department. Department and college politics always was much more important, and always will be.

Jeff, if it's a Mortimer and Randy Duke bet, then I down. This movie could move with the Blindside people, but they might not even want to see it. Again, good reviews for this film, means little to a lot of people. Proclaiming it will be the second all-time grossing pictures when it's not even close to being on that level. Surely ranks as the height of lunacy, but that works around here.

"A lot of easy, often unfounded perspectives are bent to adhere to the lazier tenets of Film Theory, reading a critique of patriarchy, capitalism and gender roles into movies where it only tangentially exists if at all, and dismissing films with a more traditionalist bent, falling back on easy terms like "reassurance" and "repression" and ascribing some level of insidious fascism to politically right of center or even perfectly genteel movies."

Change all the references to film to history, literature, what have you, and what Lex says holds for a fair portion of it.

Lex,

You are right. No professor actually comes down and says you must judge films to be good that are left wing. But they say you must judge films given critical theoretical tools such as "marxist oppression theory" , "queer theory" and the most radical of left wing "feminist" theorists.

After four years, the result is that you are taught to only like films that are left wing. General quality (acting, directing, cinematography, writing) no longer matters.

I was obviously at my film school and seemingly at yours. A quick look at the film syllabus at most serious film schools shows the same. That Jeff, will not admit this is disingenuous.

That is what I rail against. Not that a left wing film cannot be good. My film collection is rife with great left wing films. But modern leftists film leave the craft behind and just preach. They are no better than Kirk Cameron's Left Behind films.

That is also why there is such a disconnect between critics nowadays and popular films. Sadly, most critics cannot see how they were brainwashed. They will call 300 braindead and bloodthirsty while called V for Vendetta complex and nuanced.

Kinda sad really.

"They will call 300 braindead and bloodthirsty while called V for Vendetta complex and nuanced."

Both are braindead.

Blackcloud,

For the record, I had some good profs too. When I went back a few years later for a visit, one even apologized to me for how PC the curriculum was when I was there. Another guided me on my thesis and my name is actually on the wall of my film school for best senior film of my year. They were not all bad.

Ironically enough...the worst offenders were the white males. The female professors I had did not buy into PC at all and were very cool with all types of film.

You sound like you had a very modern film school experience.

I cannot for the life of me see how Jeff can say this sort of theory and practicum does not exist in film schools.

Why so many people are afraid to discuss this is beyond me.

(Rolling my eyes as usual with Nicol)

Nicol, I'm not being disingenuous. This is the biggest problem I have with you - your utter lack of respect and disinterest in actual discourse.

Like I said, the film school I attended (USC) had plenty of lefty professors. In fact, you could even say that the institution as a whole had a left-wing bias (GASP!) That's not the same thing as what you're saying ("you are taught to only like films that are left wing"). And like I said, I wish that my fellow film students and I had been instructed to read a film in ANY way, political or otherwise. What we were taught that was valuable was craft. The biggest problem that I had with my critical studies classes were that the professors were either oblivious to the film literacy levels of their students (like the professor who taught a class on post-WWII world cinema and wanted to teach Ozu and Saura to students who were barely familiar with Kurosawa and Bergman) or that the professors were just pure assholes (like the guy teaching the class on television.)

I agree with Blackcloud: both 300 and V for Vendetta were dreadfully stupid films.

Jeff,

If that was your experience...then that was your experience.

But how can you continually deny the overt extreme left wing bent of film schools and how it has affected film criticism and scholarship over the past 20 years is beyond me.

Maybe you did not have to take a lot of theory courses. Maybe your curriculum was more practical.

Awesome!

But most film critics and scholars who come from film theory curriculums are coming from the hard left. Not moderate. Not center left...hard left. They are the ones that go on to become critics etc.

Maybe I have just taken more serious film theory classes than you. That is where modern film criticism is evolved.

Maybe that is why we have not seen eye to eye all these years. My film school was geared more to serious theory and criticism where yours was more practical.

We should have swapped.

I will agree with Jeff Torborg. People who dislike V and 300 are dreadfully stupid people. He went on about them being sterilized, but that's just too much Torborg! TOO MUCH!

Nicol, obviously you and I have radically different ideas on what constitutes "extreme left wing bent". I'm sure that if you had taken some of the classes I took that I thought were fascinating and informative, like the undergrad class on Feminist Film Theory or the grad class on Underground cinema (emphasis on Stan Brakhage) you'd probably think of them as exhibiting 'extreme left wing' tendencies also.

But no, we shouldn't have swapped. Most of the grad-level critical studies classes I took (not counting the two above) were a total waste of my time.

On your other comments, can you perhaps be more specific on who you're talking about when you say "most film critics and scholars"?

Anyway, all of this comes back to your comment earlier about how "PC rubbish like Milk and Crash take home awards." The thing is, I agree with you 100% about Crash and not so much about Milk, which I think is a very well-made, beautifully-shot and -acted film. Ironically, the weakest aspect of that movie (screenwriting) is where it won one of its Oscars - and that I'm happy to attribute to lazy PC thinking.

Jeff Torborg certainly counts as most absurd (and as far as I know, meaningless) reference of the night.

If you knew the power of Torborg. You would understand that this is not meaningless. He is real. He is real, he is dangerous, and he really has a thing for Chevy Chase. Why do you think Community got picked-up? TORBORG!

I would love it if you would elucidate.

300 is a good comic-book adaptation. V for Vendetta is a lousy one.

Politics aside.

That might just be true.

In which case, I'd have to conclude that 300 is a horrible comic book.

V is a lousy comic, that needed to be fix. Jeff, really, you do the spirit of Pete Carroll and his Grade School girlfriend a disservice with your attitude. May the power of Charlie Weis COMPEL YOU!

Wow I fucked that above posting up. Curse the power of LAWMAN! Here's a revision from my writers.

"Jeff is a douche."

Oh fucking hell guys. What the fuck?

"We hate Jeff."

Oh stop it.

"Okay here it is. V is a lousy fucking comic, that needed to be fixed.

Jeff, really, you do Pete Carroll and his Grad School girlfriend a disservice with your attitude. May the power of Charlie Weis COMPEL YOU, BITCH NUGGETS!"

Damn you writers. Damn you!

Okay! And a Charles Fort Gamera Montag the Magnificent Duke of Blangis to you too!

"You sound like you had a very modern film school experience."

Nicol, to be clear, my degrees are in history. I've never been in film school or taken a film class (though if Joe Leydon were teaching, I might!). But having spent a lot of time in the humanities departments of contemporary American research universities, I would say that we had some similar experienes. Interestingly, though, the most miserable time I had in grad school (not where I got my Ph.D.) was in a department which was riven with politics: academic politics. The professors seemed driven to embody Sayre's Law that academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low. There was some of the PC stuff, but that was totally obscured by the office stuff. This department was completely political, but not in the ideological sense.

V is far from a lousy comic. Anyone who says that automatically rates a lot less respect from me.

Not that that matters to anyone, realistically.

"But how can you continually deny the overt extreme left wing bent of film schools and how it has affected film criticism and scholarship over the past 20 years is beyond me."

What film school are you talking about? Seriously. We've already affirmed USC and Toronto didn't do this, I know from personal experience that you can't possibly be talking about NYU.

Something I've noticed is that right-wingers tend to cry "bias" whenever they meet somebody with ideas that differ from theirs, rather than exploring the ideas and trying to see if there's anything worthwhile from it. This isn't to say that left-wingers always, or even often, embrace other ideas; it's just that left-wingers are willing to ignore the difference of opinion, whereas right-wingers always chalk it up to bias oppressing their personal right to think exactly what they want to think without ever having in challenged.

And then, because all right-wingers believe their beliefs and experiences are universal, they then say things like, "Hey, why is it that science tends to agree with the left so much? Must be a bias!"

Why "V for Vendetta" (movie) is stupid:
http://www.slate.com/id/2138561/

Why "The Two Towers" (movie) is stupid:
http://www.slate.com/id/2076507/

As for "300," was there a more vile, despicable major studio release this decade?

Gordon, I've asked Nicol on multiple occasions where he attended, and he's always refused to say.

Blackcloud, I like TTT (and think of the three LOTR movies as basically one undifferentiated mass of grandeur and tediousness) but I completely agree with you about 300. Just loathsome.

And now I have to go and interact with actual, non-internet people.

"If it's left-wing to state that forcibly relocating an entire civilization so that you can have the mineral rights to their land is bad, then Avatar is left-wing."

well said, LYT. what ever happened to plain 'right' and 'wrong', instead of 'right' and 'left'?

(and overuse of the term PC by nicol and the paranoid collective is so TIRESOME, having rendered the term virtually meaningless. anything 'the right' doesn't agree with is automatically 'PC', demonstrating a clear lack of ideas and critical thinking)

"Something I've noticed is that right-wingers tend to cry 'bias' whenever they meet somebody with ideas that differ from theirs, rather than exploring the ideas and trying to see if there's anything worthwhile from it."

Very accurate. Why does anyone even respond to Nicol?

Film schools may lean left because artists are usually left. Because conservatives are boring people who only want to talk about the Bible, and when they make a movie it's direct to DVD where Gary Busey fights a demon. Although I give Mel Gibson a pass because he kills lots of people in horrible ways in his flicks, and I can get behind that.

Regarding Crash and Milk getting awards while Dark Knight didn't...come on Nicol, that's same as it ever was. I don't think it has anything to do with political ideology, it's that the Academy likes self-important movies about the human experience, and never give awards to movies based on cartoons.

Fun movies never get any respect, where's Hitchcock's Oscar? He was nominated a bunch of times but would always lose to something like The Grapes of Wrath.

Hey, does Christian have any thoughts as to where this movie fits amongst Cameron's right-leaning filmography, especially since it sounds like he gives the bad guys actual lines spoken by Bush?

I'm confused... did I miss all the right-wing bitching about DISTRICT 9, since that movie featured a man who decides to help the downtrodden and abused masses (generic masses, no less -- how much more socialist can you get?!) in their struggle against their evil white oppressors?

crap, meant to add before

lex, reading through the thread i somehow missed your previous comment to me re: cameron, to which i say: i find it fascinating that you should comment on me coming to cameron's defence at the drop of a pin...

(which quite simply i do not; for example there was an entire thread discussing cameron's sensibilities wherein i disagreed with many of the opinions expressed but didn't feel compelled to comment much, rather i just listened to the various insights; i certainly don't think cameron's work is perfect or beyond reproach, but i am a hard-out fan from way back, i've talked to him quite a few times/seen him at work plus i know his films like the back of my hand so yes, i chime in when i have a strong opinion on 'big jim' -- a nickname not given to him by me, incidently)

...when if michael bay is derided within a ten kilometre radius you jump on your white horse to ride in to defend his idiotness. so, hypocritical much?

(and at least cameron is one of the great action directors of the ages and more than just a tacky one-trick, one-note cheese-ball pony like bay, who's not very bright and writes at grade-school level, unable to compose proper english to the degree he's unaware that the conjunction SHOULD'VE is in fact 'should' and 'have' combined rather than SHOULD OF, as demonstrated in his recent emails made public. maybe it's just me but people that inept shouldn't be directing multi-million dollar movies. basic grade-school english should be a prerequisite)

"Film schools may lean left because artists are usually left"

bingo

"Hey, does Christian have any thoughts as to where this movie fits amongst Cameron's right-leaning filmography, especially since it sounds like he gives the bad guys actual lines spoken by Bush?"

You missed my comment way on the other thread.

You convinced me Big Perm. Clearly Cameron doesn't do sub-text and there's no need to think about it. I mean, nobody else is talking about these things.

"Avatar has been my dream for 14 years, and I am extremely happy with how McDonald's is bringing it to life in their restaurants."

But I don't where that fits. Behind Irony?

That said, I'm expecting wonder from AVATAR.

"But I don't know where that fits." Doh.

Can someone explain the aspect ratio thing to me?

(I never understand IMAX.)

Is this in 2.35:1 in regular theaters but opened up in IMAX theaters? Or is it 1.66:1 everywhere?

Personally I love widescreen, so if that's the choice, as I think it is on some IMAX-ready flicks, I'd rather see it wide than tall.

I never went back to the old thread, so as far as I know, Christian is still a jerk. Did I miss anything?

I never called you any names, Jeff. Even after you accused me of "queer-baiting" -- but then your humorless intellectual tactics are fairly obvious.

you know, the whole political angle, it kind of takes away from the whole experience for me. i realize that there's a lot of films that use poorly developed, community college level political subtext. Does it require this level of attention?

Revenge of the Sith is a terrible movie made no more enjoyable by identifying Lucas' obvious political subtext.

Avatar's politics are so obvious you can identify them in the trailer.

THERE'S STUFF WE NEED
THESE NATIVE PEOPLE HAVE THAT STUFF
SEND IN THE MILITARY/BLACKWATER TO GET THAT STUFF
NATIVES FIGHT MILITARY

As for the box office, i'm kind of with the 'King Kong' analogy. In my gut, i don't see this film hitting a billion worldwide. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong. And i very well could be. But i see Avatar as a spectacle piece that will have a hard time breaking out into 4 quad territory.

LexG,

The film was shot in 1.78:1 but framed for 2.35:1. It's in scope in regular cinemas, and opened up to 16X9 in IMAX so it fills more of their screens.

If Cameron says that IMAX is the preferred way to see it, that's the way to go. If you'd 'rather see it wide than tall', then you're going to see, i think, a loss of picture information top and bottom (tops and tails). The IMAX screen is more of an iris shape than an aspect ratio as such, and inevitably a lot of picture information will be lopped off to fit a 2.35:1 frame. That's why, incidentally, the Blu-Ray of The Dark Knight varies between ratios of 2.35:1, and 16:9 for the IMAX photography, to preserve the tops and tails of the original compositions.

Jeff - FWIW, sorry to hear you're out of work.

Comparing USC film school to any other, even NYU, is impossible. USC is its own animal. Nicol's experience wouldn't have been as ugly if he went there. But his story has truth. I know people who were in nearby Cali schools and they had Chomsky as part of the film reading curriculum.

Speaking of Christian...see this thread? This is political debate over Avatar.

As for Cameron, what he says is part of his creative influence in an interview is true - at that time. My affinity for the guy came when he was proselytizing the future of cinema, especially for genre films, was the independent. That was during the making of Terminator. He hated the studio system. Now, he owns the studio system. The guy is an incredible filmmaker but he gave up as a writer after Abyss and spent most of the 90's advocating for less films at higher costs. If the studios follow him, you will see a disparity in film production unlike any other time.

Do we have a tally as to how many were employed by Avatar? My guess is Spielberg and Lucas employed more at less dollars in the past few years.

Welcome back, Lex.

Christian, I'm not saying Cameron doesn't do subtext. Just that you can't even read the text due to your ideology.

LexG, welcome back, baby! Lucid, coherent, spot on posts...bravo, well done. Hope your physical & emotional well-being is manifest in your return!

The IMAX screen is more of an iris shape than an aspect ratio as such, and inevitably a lot of picture information will be lopped off to fit a 2.35:1 frame.

Yeah, but more picture information doesn't always mean more useful picture information. The IMAX folks don't really like 2.39:1 films because they don't fill the field of vision that much (at least not the upper and lower portions) and this is supposed to be one of IMAX's distinguishing factors; thus 2.39:1 films are generally (not always) opened up to 1.78:1 for IMAX. Cameron may prefer the IMAX experience overall, but the very fact a 2.39:1 version exists (there's no reason the standard prints couldn't be 1.85:1, which is near as dammit to 1.78:1) suggests 2.39:1 is his preferred framing. I guess we'll know for sure when the video release rolls around.

(Incidentally the Blu-ray of The Dark Knight doesn't preserve the "tops and tails" of the IMAX version -- the IMAX scenes were shot and projected in 1.44:1, the 1.78:1 AR on the BD is a compromise. The unmatted 1.44:1 versions of those scenes are included as a bonus feature on the DVD and have significant dead space at the top of the frame, since that area is barely within the field of vision in an IMAX theater.)

Yeah, 2:35:1 is pretty useless in IMAX. Somewhere I kind of recall Cameron saying he preferred...or maaybe it was almost preferred...the 4:3 ratio version of Terminator 2. Which seemed weird.

"Just that you can't even read the text due to your ideology."

So my take on Cameron's conflicted militarism is misreading how? Because Big Perm says so? I had no ideology when I saw ALIENS -- you said you saw it repeatedly but never even thought about it. Because you wuv it so. And make movies. Fine.

But in 20 years, when folks discuss AVATAR, they'll bring up Bush, Iraq, Obama and what it represented socially, politically and technologically. They'll show how it fits in Cameron's ouevre of war machines in action. The same way that you and Jeff deny ALIENS cultural/political frame. Which you can't see because of your own ideology I guess.

And ironically, as Martin S. kindly pointed out, the AVATAR political debate is ON. But keep repeating: It's only a movie, it's only a movie....

Ha! Ben Stiller's appearance on Conan kind of sums up my feelings about Avatar...just a bit overblown. REALLY hoping it lives up to the hype!

Re: liberal-leaning college profs...may be true, but they kind of have to counteract the simpleton "Columbus DISCOVERED America the GREAT!" pablum we are fed all through elementary school.

For instance, lots of U.S. foreign relations problems are of our own making...esp in Middle East, where we've propped up governments conducive to our oil interests...like in Iran, where we helped overthrow Mossedegh and install the repressive Rezah Shah who, in turn, engendered an Islamic revolution. It's complicated and paradoxical...not this or that, but this AND that (America can be both great AND very intrusive and destructive).

Lots of folks on both sides cannot handle the duality...

What's hilarious is the ususually uber-au courant IO bagging on AVATAR -- while waxing girlish over that awful, unfunny "Community" series...as if that's where the real cultural wave is...

As for as colleges go, yes, the humanities tend to be left-leaning. And outside the art and english departments are far more influential and funded law, business, engineering departments that lean right. Like at Berkeley. Hello John Yoo!

First of all, I think we all take our politics into the movies with us, and it darn well informs our viewing. When 300 first came out in theaters, it was right during the time when everyone on the left was afraid that Bush and co was going to invade Iran as a final hail-mary pass. So, perhaps unfairly, the film's light-skinned Europeans vs. dark-skinned Persians unnerved me more than it should have, as if the film's popularity was going to make it a propaganda tool for bombing Tehran. Three years later, we haven't and probably won't invade Iran, so I imagine I could enjoy the picture a little more now, being able to just watch it at a surface level. To this day, I'm pissed that we 'Jewies' were omitted from the film's multi-cultural, rainbow coalition of evil.

Conversely LexG is right, a good movie is a good movie even if you don't like the politics. I abhor Taylor Hackford's explicit anti-due process moral in The Devil's Advocate (he says as much on the commentary), but I still find the film incredibly entertaining and fun. And how I wish that Transformers 2's Obama-bashing, pro 'stay in Iraq forever' politics were its biggest problems.

Finally, I have to disagree with Christian, as I rather love Community. I have no idea if the show represents any kind of cultural wave, I just know that Ken Jeong is hilarious, Allison Brie is adorable, and the show makes me laugh harder than any show this side of 30 Rock. Between Community, Glee, and Modern Family, this may be the best new season for TV since 2001 (24, Alias, Scrubs, Smallville, Criminal Intent, etc).

"Re: liberal-leaning college profs...may be true, but they kind of have to counteract the simpleton 'Columbus DISCOVERED America the GREAT!' pablum we are fed all through elementary school."

I tried to parse that sentence, but the non sequiturs were too much even for me.

"The same way that you and Jeff deny ALIENS cultural/political frame. Which you can't see because of your own ideology I guess."

I don't deny it at all. My point from the beginning has been, Christian, that you're hyperbolically misreading and misrepresenting it.

That said, I'm sorry I called you a jerk earlier. And that said, you're still wrong.

I think what JennaB was saying is that the liberal slant of college profs is a necessary corrective to the traditionalism of elementary education.

If Cameron says that IMAX is the preferred way to see it, that's the way to go.

I don't think Cameron has ever said that.

"I think what JennaB was saying is that the liberal slant of college profs..."

it's only a 'liberal slant' if you look at it from a conservative perspective. someone who grew up in a commune of organic food growers with an emphasis not on materialism or wealth but harmony with nature would likely go to any university and find it a very conservative environment. just like someone who's a devout catholic from a very conservative household with an emphasis on 'traditional values' would probably find the environment in institutions of higher learning quite 'liberal'. everything is perception based on our own individual backgrounds/filters.

"If Cameron says that IMAX is the preferred way to see it, that's the way to go.

I don't think Cameron has ever said that."

(you're right, cde, he hasn't)

My recollection is that all 3-D theatres, IMAX and otherwise, are 1.85, because Cameron felt 3-D needed the extra height, and all the 2-D theatres are 2.35.

Apology accepted, Jeff.

"And that said, you're still wrong."

I'm still waiting for that absolute proof you have.

"I think what JennaB was saying is that the liberal slant of college profs is a necessary corrective to the traditionalism of elementary education."

Maybe she was trying to say that, Jeff, but she certainly did not say it. Besides, elementary education ends when you're 10 years old. What happens between then and when you get to college? I'm pretty sure most people don't go straight from the fifth grade to their freshman year. Apparently JennaB thinks middle and high school leave no impression on students, if college profs' liberal slant has to counter what was learned in elementary school. And I have to wonder just what kind of elementary school she went to where she was fed such "pablum" [sic] as "'Columbus DISCOVERED America the GREAT!'" all the way through. America the Great? WTF?

I'm pretty sure that when you talk about the traditionalism of elementary education you mean all K-12. Which is not just elementary education. I'd question just how traditional it is (likely it varies regionally), but I think that some college professors assume that their students have been brainwashed or screwed up, and it's their moral duty to enlighten them. Also, it's a mistake to equate traditionalism with pre-college and non- or anti-traditional with college. College instruction can be just as traditional (even conservative) as what comes before it. But the imperatives making it so are different than the ones which may make K-12 traditional. When people describe the "liberal orthodoxy" of academia, they're not kidding. Orthodoxy is by definition conservative. Thus, some of the most orthodox and reactionary people in higher education are the ones who ideologically would flatter themselves as being the most heterodox and progressive. So I would contest the idea that it is either a corrective or necessary.

As for JennaB, if she wants to clarify her remarks she can do so, but I don't think any amount of parsing by us will make her initial statement make sense.

I understood what she said, Blackcloud. When I was in elementary school we were versed into the accepted political mythology of kind explorers and grateful indians. When I was in high school I did a mammoth report on the Gulf of Tonkin based on our text and teachers -- only to find out a decade later that the "attack" was indeed bullshit, pimped as truth in our historical memory banks.

Sigh...

Obsessing on a movie's subtext is tedious and joyless. In fact, it approaches being loathsome, to steal a word from somebody regarding 300.

ALIENS is one of my top 10 of all-time. I love it because it's about monsters and guns, and it's expertly crafted action/horror film.

I liked 300 but it's nothing I've watched since the original viewing. I liked it because it was silly and pretend. It was a neat theater experience and it passed a rainy afternoon.

Now, I love BOOGIE NIGHTS because those broken, deluded people truly move me. GOODFELLAS becaouse it is rich and a detailed. And SPINAL TAP makes me laugh just thinking about it.

Still, I suppose I could talk myself out of liking those movies --or any movie-- if think about the subtext, or imprint my own political and moral bias. But I refuse to do that. It's boring. Yes, movies have meanings and whatnot but....yikes. The lengths some go to.

But hey. Too each his own.

"Still, I suppose I could talk myself out of liking those movies --or any movie-- if think about the subtext"

Who says you have to talk yourself out of liking them? A good or great film invites discussion. So you walked out of 2001 with nothing to chat about but the pretty effects? Okay, to each his own.

My "unwavering ideology" doesn't stop me from owning ALIENS and watching 100 times. Some film theory is joyless, but loathsome? Tell it to Bogdanivich or Soderbergh or Schrader or others who have written extensively about film. Some theory can be joyless and constricted, but quite a bit is infused with love and pleasure. Art has Meaning. Is this a newsflash?

Martin S, thanks for the comment, I generally work freelance, so it's no big surprise. (BTW, working freelance is HORRIBLE and I don't understand how people do it).

Christian, in this discussion, the burden of 'proof' has always been on you - you're the one who started the discussion, who launched a thesis, and then who didn't provide solid backing. I wouldn't have to provide 'proof' that Bigfoot doesn't exist either.

All that said, Christian, I agree with you in the most recent exchange - 'obsessing over subtext' might be joyless, but just talking about it, exploring layers of meaning, opening up new interpretations? For me, that's the whole point of art. Not just 'pretty pictures go boom'.

Christian, the lot of you are not as down as I am, and that's the truth. Community is good shit. If you have a problem about with it, that's you. It's not me Cochise.

I am also not bagging on Avatar. I am simply bagging on a yenta, that really believes this no-tracking motherfucking movies is going to beat TDK. It's the height of motherfucking hubris, but he Captain Motherfucking Hubris. So it motherfucking fits. Nevertheless, Avatar is not going to do shit. People are not all that interested. When it's an unmitigated disaster in a week. I will gloat. If it's not. I still have Sherlock Holmes up my sleeve. SO I AM STILL GOING TO GLOAT! WOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah, if you have that much of a problem with 300. You really are a soft touch. If you have a problem with V for Vendetta, then you really have no appreciation for METAPHOR!

I'll be very surprised if this beats TDK. If 3D Imax was more attainable, then yeah, that kind of spectacle could outweigh the romanticism built around Ledger's death performance. Without that weight I'd be looking at ROTK or Sith numbers. For me, the question is who do people associate more with Titanic? Cameron or Leo? I know what cineophiles think, but for the teen girls that are now adults who put Titanic over...

Mendelson - Three years later, we haven't and probably won't invade Iran...

Out of curiosity, are you drawing a distinction between invasion and all other kinds of conflict with Iran?

So Christian, answer me this...how DOES Avatar fit in with "Cameron's ouevre of war machines in action?" Especially since it seems to be a hippie movie that's anti-military. I think it's unfair to use Rambo since that was a work for hire and Cameron disowned the politics. Which he told the New York Times, and here's a site that mentions it:

http://www.creativescreenwriting.com/csdaily/dvds/12_17_04UltimateRambo.html

I mean, I notice that when I mentioned Avatar was some anti-military flick, you responded by sarcastically saying that of course movies don't have subtext and shouldn't be thought about...while conveniently ignoring the posited question.

Sarcasm is the refuge of the damned.

IOI, are you a brain in a jar or do you actually have a physical body that can roam around and do things?

Jeff's channeling his inner Hilary Putnam today.

IO may be a body part in a jar, but I doubt it's a brain.

Ha ha, burn.

What happens when two douches try to be witty? I'm not sure. Cloudy and Jeffy Poo have to answer those questions. I at least have a job, Jeff. NAPALM!

Christian - hypothetcial - if we attack Iran, how does that affect Avatar?

That may have been just too mean even for Jeff, but then I remember what he wrote about Lex's twitter feed. So I do not feel all that worried about it now. Excuse me. I must go discuss things with Bobby Valentine. Whose Bobby Valentine? He's the antithesis of TORBORG!

IO - is this guy Crusher Creel? Read the last line.

http://www.josephgatt.com/bio.html

That would be amazing if true Martin, but I am hoping Beta Ray Bill makes an appearance. Why? BETA RAY BILL RULES!

"What happens when two douches try to be witty? I'm not sure. Cloudy and Jeffy Poo have to answer those questions."

What'd I say?

That's a good question, Martin. It depends on your POV.

The conversation could go something like this:

BURKE: This is clearly an important
species we're dealing with here. We can't just arbitrarily exterminate them --

RIPLEY: Bullshit!

VASQUEZ: Yeah, bullshit. Watch us.

Sorry Cloudy. My bad. You good people. GOOD PEOPLE!

No worries, IO.

Yes, I was referring to a full-blown 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' type deal. I know full well we've been meddling in Iran for a few years, and I'm still concerned that Israel may decide to call our bluff and attack Iran.

Frankly, I've never understood the idea that the Rambo films were hardcore conservative. The original novelist was pretty liberal, and the whole thread of the three films is that Rambo (a soldier) believes that the Vietnam war was a bad idea or terribly fought. Futhermore, he feels betrayed that the government used him to kill then left him out to dry. Whether he blames the government who waged the war (Johnson and Nixon) or the government that allegedly abandoned POWs to avoid backlash (Regan), I'm not sure how you make the argument that the Rambo films are some kind of gung-ho pro-conservative movies. I'm not saying they are overtly liberal, but they are a lot more complicated than the common line (even the fourth Rambo takes a horribly pessimistic and fatalistic view of warfare).

Scott, FIRST BLOOD is a terrific action thriller with ambiguous politics, coming on the tail of the cynical 70's. RAMBO II is 80's ridiculous. Blowing up faceless Cong with explosive arrows. That's a right-wing fantasia on re-fighting Nam. That's why Reagan was orgiastic about the film and referenced it often. I call Reagan a gung-ho conservative.

RAMBO 4 I like.

But Reagan also claimed Born In the USA and (to a lesser extent) Star Wars as his own, so just because R. Reagan likes something doesn't make it hardcore right-wing. I still say the Rambo films are about anger towards governmental and societal indifference, no matter which party is in power. And I still say that Rambo III is no better or worse than the second film. Although its politics are even less 'right-wing fantasia', as it attempts to paint fighting off invading Russians from Afghanistan as a better war than Nam. IE - Rambo finds his peace by finally fighting and 'winning' a just war. We can laugh at the irony 20 years later, and we can wonder why Rambo IV acts like Rambo III never happened, but it still works for the movie. Just my thoughts.

Good thing for us IO never tries to be witty, or we'd see how three douches attempt it. If only IO tried to be well-reasoned or smart or non crazy instead.

Oh, and to add to what Scott said...it is interesting to watch Rambo 3 in today's context. But you know another movie that plays a lot differently now, is Three Kings. That whole movie is asking why don't we take out Saddam and free the people over there.

Scott: As I recall, in the original First Blood novel, Rambo actually is killed -- by his former commander, I think -- leaving the impression that he was too damaged by his war experiences to continue functioning in a post-war world. BTW: First Blood is one of those projcets that made it to the screen only after other actors and/or filmmakers had been attached or announced. At one point -- again, if memory serve me correctly -- Al Pacino was supposed to play the lead role.

I saw Avatar last Thursday and...it ROCKED! It really does stay in your head for days after and i am already looking forward to my second viewing (well, i was yearning that the minute it ended). There is just so much to take in that i really need to it probably 2 or 3 more times (by the way, i NEVER go and see anything more than once).

Sure, the plot is extremely predictable, but with all the crazy shit going on and the technological breakthroughs, you have to have something to 'connect' to.

It will be BIG!

Scott, RAMBO FIRST BLOOD 2 was widely perceived by about 95 percent of critics to be a right-wing xenophobic paen to kicking ass in Nam again. Here's what the St. James Encyclopedia says about the film as an example of its perception:

"The film was a huge success both in the United States and worldwide, earning more than $150 million in its U.S. theatrical release alone. Even President Ronald Reagan praised it. For some, that was a problem: the character of Rambo seemed to represent the kind of kill-the-Commies machismo that had involved the country in Vietnam in the first place--an attitude that also could be said to typify most U.S. foreign policy in the Reagan years."

Boom, that's it. Otherwise, what does his line, "Do we get to win this time" mean? That line is 80's rightie revisionist deluxe so the proof is in the pudding. Stallone even hung out at the White House watching war movies with Reagan, so I don't think Rambo was misread by anybody.

FIRST BLOOD is about that societal/governmental indifference. RAMBO 2 is about blowing apart Cong and Russkies to set the record straight.

Rambo (First Blood Part 2) would have been awesome with Pacino in the lead role.

Yeah, Rambo is pretty much a revenge fantasy, just like Missing in Action or, the best of the lot, Delta Force. I think the politics are relatively clear. And Rambo is saying that the war could have been won if the bureaucrats hadn't gotten in the way the first time, and then of course they get in the way the second time and leave Rambo high and dry.

Okay, the fact that Christian said that he liked the most recent Rambo movie, which I thought was particularly racist, just blew open the whole arena.

Blackcloud: I'm a fan of blindingly obscure references like that Hilary Putnam thing earlier, well done.

Jeff, I've got a Ph.D. And you can't get one of those unless you're a master of the blindingly obscure. It says so right on it.

Perm, you are a fuck-wit, you remain a fuck-wit, and you and Jeff are two of the goofiest fuck-wits on the nets. Seriously, you two, fuck. Have some sex, smoke some pot afterward, and I am sure it will be better for your constitutions.

You're so clever, nerd.

Do we have to have sex with each other or could we branch out to, say, a lady?

I don't know about fucking, but I might let Jeff go down on me.

Too much posting. Not enough fucking. Dipshits.

In a world of retards, the illiterate unfunny fool is king.

See IO, find the right society and you can be the respected leader!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)