So the real trailer for James Cameron’s next movie, “Avatar,” is finally out, and I’ve been observing three general strains of reaction:
- This looks really awesome!
- Meh, that’s an awful lot of CGI and we’ve seen it before. What’s all the hype about?
My reaction is more the first than the second.
I think the hype—which should be noted is only present in some quarters, as I know more than a few people who haven’t heard much about this movie at all yet—is unfortunate, since it can blow expectations to an unrealizable point. It’s also inevitable, given that “Titanic” remains the highest grossing film of all time, and “Terminator,” “Terminator 2” and “Aliens” are among the best genre action films ever made.
But that is an awful lot of CGI and we have seen it before. Right? AFter all, we’ve seen fully CGI actors before, like Gollum in “Lord of the Rings.” Of course, that was just one CGI actor. Well, we’ve seen whole movies with CGI actors before, though, like in Beowulf.
Right then. Really, we haven’t quite seen this before.
CGI hit a point a few years ago where the challenge started to be less about being true to life and more about being true to film. Can you direct the “virtual” camera the same way you can direct a real one? Can the CGI actors be real enough to act? So far, the only CGI films that have really been pushing the true-to-film limits have been Pixar’s.
Cameron has been (at least implicitly) promising a paradigm shift with this film, so if expectations are unduly inflated he earns a good chunk of the blame. But the thing is, he may actually be right. The “paradigm” isn’t about technology, per se. It’s about making the technology seamless to the director, and about what possibilities for storytelling that may open up.
What he’s trying to do, in other words, is bring Pixar-esque magic to live action, to make CGI more than just special effects. Will “Avatar” manage that? After just two minutes of footage, I’m pretty sure it’s the best shot we’ve seen to date.
And it has Space Marines and 10′ tall blue cat people. C’mon.
(N.B.: There is also a third strain of reaction, mocking the movie for looking like “Ferngully” or having a “Dances with Wolves” kind of plot. The first comparison is bluntly pretty stupid; the second one isn’t, although what came to me was Le Guin’s The Word for World is Forest. Cameron’s never been a particularly original storyteller. But his execution is always top-notch and—I’m looking at you, Bay—he doesn’t believe action/adventure tales require you to turn your brain off.)
no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 23:54 (UTC)Bingo. Pixar has basically never indulged in "look, shiny technology!" like some George Lucases I could name - they have focused, all along, on delivering a solid, emotionally compelling, well-written story. Without one of those, producing a flat, forgettable movie is inevitable no matter how much visual technology you buy (Speed Racer's meteoric disappearance comes to mind).
no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 23:59 (UTC)I'm thinking of starting a group of folks to truly appreciate cinema. Whether it be current releases or older films.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 23:59 (UTC)This is what I'm saying!
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 00:04 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 00:20 (UTC)...and so far I'd have to say that even with no dialogue, the blue cat woman's performance beats out Natalie Portman's. So I can't go with you on that one. :)
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 00:26 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 01:54 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 02:39 (UTC)I mean really, if you've seen one Boy Meets Giant Blue Cat Thing movie, you've seen 'em all.
</sarcasm>
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 04:46 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 04:55 (UTC)"Original" is less about the story you tell, but what you bring to the table when you tell it.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 05:21 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 05:30 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 05:38 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 08:42 (UTC)I don't know about the aliens. Are they supposed to look that human? It's like the CGI team got cold footed and stopped partway on the road to awesome (and furry). :}
And oh, speaking of awesome and furry... Any progress on C&Q? =)
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 08:46 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 17:00 (UTC)C&Q's progress has been, to be diplomatic, slow, thanks to the contract work I've been on (which I'm actually putting off getting back to even at this very moment). But it hasn't been entirely stopped, either. I'm hoping to write something more about it again finally before the end of the month, and also get to a point shortly where I can show off the Mercurial repository and have anyone who knows programming wince at my coding practices.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 17:32 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 22:15 (UTC)Still, in the end aesthetic calls are subjective, and to me (after re-watching the trailer a few times) the Na'Vi's faces are still that little bit too close to human-skull-with-prosthetics; a smaller cranium volume, perhaps, and an actual muzzle would have been sweet. But hey, it's just me, and who the hell cares? :D This looks like it has the potential to be really damn good and I'm all excited about it! In good part because, as you rightly point out, Cameron's business is storytelling, and he knows his business like nobody.
As for C&Q, good to hear there'll be some sort of public release soon! I'm really looking forward to it. For whatever reason I fancy that it'll prompt me to write more. One of the first few Google hits for "claw & quill" is a Trac, by the way, with a Subversion view, so if that's not supposed to be public some access control might be in order. :)
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 22:38 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-22 10:09 (UTC)