An AVATAR Crew Member Can't Take Criticism - Page 7

Incredible.

Oh come on Captain, it's a well known fact that plot is the least important part of a film. It's the reason why screenwriters get treated like garbage all the time, they're barely even necessary. I mean really, you could make a whole movie based on nothing more than characters reciting all of the definitions in the Webster dictionary that start with the letter B, and under the right director with the right team, that shit would be fucking GOLD. Fuck writing. Fuck it in its stupid ass.

Isn't Pepe simply saying what Ebert has always said? He just worded it a little odd.

When he says plot, he's just talking about about the subject matter. What he said shouldn't mean that screenwriters are not part of the sufficient talent and craftsmanship behind a project.

Mcnooj82, I want to touch your bum. But really, what I was saying that society should be ok with bum touching and in fact bum touching by itself is an artform in its own right. I just worded it oddly...

I get that there is some percieved anti-Avatar bias that is driving people to come to the film's defense, but to pretend that Pepe is speaking in general terms about film and not specifically trying to single-handedly correct that bias is being naive. Go look in the District 9 thread. This guy's making a hobby of being an Avatar apologist, even though people aren't really dumping on the movie or saying they won't see it. It's anoying.

Ah. I missed the context then. I'm staying away from the District 9 threads till I see the movie and based Pepe's point on that one post alone.

As for my bum. If you must. (lifts skirt)

What? He did not say great film makers have the potential to make great movies from ridiculous plots. Pepe said the specific plot is irrelevant when it comes to making great movies. Obviously a good director can elevate the material, that's not what we're arguing, you're the one completely missing the point.

Edit: Heh, I wasn't yelling at you man. My post was directed at Bitches. In the time I wrote that posts popped up quickly!

B-b-but, I already copped to missing the point! Don't yell at meeeeee.

I guess I tend to lean toward the positive in my assumptions.

Yeaaaah. And if that post of his hadn't of shown up right after a post made by someone saying their friends were falling asleep at listening about the plot to Avatar, you might have a point. In general, this statement can be true. BUT! There is still a baseline of plot/story quality that, if not achieved, can't be overcome by the most talented crew in the world. A plot can be sketchy, true, but then the director is essentially creating the story on the fly and that is still as a whole creating a good plot.

And again, no one is saying that Avatar is going to be a flaming pile of shit. I don't think a single person has said this. I think it is not going to make a ton of money at the b.o., and I think it's going to be a hard sell to my non-nerd friends. There are no actors attached to this movie that can draw in people just on name basis. And outside of the geek community, who even knows who James Cameron is anymore? Had this movie come out near Titanic with Sigourney Weaver in it, I think they would have had an easier time making serious cake. Now, not so much.

I want to be wrong. I love James Cameron's films and I am looking forward to seeing this one. I just have a bad feeling about this is all.

And also, I think that there is an arguement to be made that a good movie flows from a great story. All of the great movies I love tell a great story and pin whatever achievements the director has made onto the back of that story. I don't think you can even say that a specific plot is irrelevant when it comes to a making a great movie. It's not like there is this magic checklist of elements you can include in a film that will make it great every single time you go out without factoring in the script and what the story demands. I don't know. I am hard-pressed to think of a specific film crew or director that is able to make a great movie no matter what material they get to work with... that could just be my film ignorance showing though.

There isn't one. Plain and simple. All directors and all above line people have failed at one point and it's usually because the plot of the movie didn't resonate or the storytelling was shit.

I have no idea how you got that from him saying 'plot is irrelevant' and 'all that matters is craftsmanship'.

It's probably not true but so much more fun to read this imagining that Cameron wrote it himself.

It's clear he was referring to the fact that they both have 'A's in their title and that both films were directed by someone.

I didn't know Kanye West worked on Avatar...

The longer I live the more I realise that nothing has more truth in it then this:

"It is not what you say, buy how you say it, that makes or breaks a case".

Would anyone like to rethink the idea that there isn't hubris behind this film? Anyone? Anyone? Didn't think so.

I may vomit.
Cameron is a good filmmaker, and I have enjoyed most of his films, but he ain't no David Lean.

While I agree he's no David Lean, I don't agree with the vomit part. Personally, I find something kind of charming about that level of sheer ballsy arrogance.

I agree...Avatar will not change my life, no film does, unless you are a successful filmmaker, but Avatar, will likely be better than Lawrence of Arabia, at least to me.

Duke, are you aware that that kind of statement is why 95% of us think you are either a freaking idiot or a troll?

Sheer ballsy stupidity, you mean. That is kind of comparasion that a lot of critics will remember come review time.
I have never understood the appeal that sheer egoism,arrogance,and braggadocio have for some people. It is his huge ego and arrogance that make me hate Rush Limbaugh as much as his dumbass polticial opinions.

This movie never stood much of a chance against the critics after the comments from Cameron. It will have to be very near Lawrence of Arabia quality to get more than a mediocre review and if it's utterly boring or pretentious that's fine and I hope they rip it a new one. I can already see every fucking review describing how it's well made and a step forward on the technical front BUT *insert the already tired 'no game changer', 'eyeball fuck' etc. statement*

dudalb, Why? Just because I don't think Lawrence Of Arabia, is anything special? It clearly is not in the same upper echelon of great films like...Patton, Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, or The Guns Of Naverone?

I think you confuse it with "Lawrence of a labia" which was indeed highly overrated!

Most people who saw Titanic.

All Fleed was saying is that he's confident he will like Avatar better than Lawrence of Arabia, which is absolutely not surprising. It would come as sort of a shock if he had reversed the sentiment and boldly stated that there is no way Avatar will be better than his beloved Lawrence of Arabia.

EDIT: okay, now I am a little shocked.

Bitches Leave, Actually I find LOA to be quite a...dull film. As for a film with...Peter O'Toole, give me...My Favorite Year or Troy, instead.

Zhukov, Thank You for the assist.

Did he really say that? Jesus. I didn't think the Roth-man could sink any lower.

But you gotta realize he's probably scared shitless...his job is riding on Cameron's movie like a botfly. He's gonna say any and everything to pump it up.

As far as making good movies out of any story...of course it's possible, but there's no way to quantify that kind of stuff.

You're damn straight you can make a movie out of a guy reciting letters that start with the letter B if the screen writer is talented enough to make the character's and environment interesting enough for us to give a shit, the director can frame the film in an interesting and exciting manner, and the actors come off as believable, convincing, or funny. What matters is the fusion of these elements.

Obviously a normal guy with a normal voice sitting on a chair in a blank white room would be the wrong way to go about making a film about a guy reciting words that start with the letter B, however if you get a sufficiently talented writer, actor, and director they can make it something unique, be it having some talented voice actor reciting the words in some funny/serious way while there is also activity going on in the background, perhaps with some mood-eliciting music, all while the film is framed in some interesting manner that makes the experience interesting to the viewer.

Just look at William Shatner's appearance on Conan reciting Sarah Palin's speech as an example of how something that can be viewed as plain or boring can actually turn out to be theatric and funny if framed in the right manner.

You don't even need a plot to make a good film, there have been some great short films that do nothing but elicit a particular mood. You've seriously never seen a good music video with some terribly simple plot that still manages to entertain?

A plot is not the same as a screenplay. Anyone can come up with a cool plot, the challenge with a screenplay is to come up with the filler that will make watching the film interesting for 90+ minutes or whatever.

No, don't put words into my mouth or let my other posts bias your opinion about this particular post in question. I was absolutely speaking in general terms about all films, not just AVATAR. Although my post was in reply to a post about AVATAR, this is pretty much the same thing I say all the time whenever someone says a plot sounds dumb.

In my years of film going I can think of plenty of plots that may sound dumb on paper that come off as great when actually witnessed on film because the production (including the writing) was full of quality and effectively made me buy into the story depicted. Taken at face value, for example, most of the plots behind Pixar films don't sound all too great, but usually the talent behind the production (including the writing, art direction, etc) delivers in spades, effectively making us give a shit about a rat that wants to be a cook, a fish that wants to find his son, an old man that attaches balloons to his house to fly away, etc.

A hobby? I'm made like 5 or 6 recent posts about AVATAR on CHUD (granted, I don't have a high post count here, but still...), all of which have been completely rational rebuts to some other post that was either dumping on AVATAR or expressing some sort of irrational doubt...such as this "plot sounds stupid" thinking. If my posts are annoying you can simply ignore them and try not to post anything that will elicit a response from me. I'm not usually going to post random crap out of the blue that doesn't apply to the post I'm responding to however. This is no more a hobby for me than it is for people here with thousands of more posts than I.

You realize that the medium critical response being reacted to here wasn't to a recitation of the film's plot but from witnessing the first 25 minutes of the finished film, right? Or do I have my facts wrong? AVATAR had its chance to sell itself beyond its F/X; the F/X got praise, the story got shrugs.

I'm not referring to how the film is being sold, I'm referring to how it comes across on screen as you actually watch the film, something none of us have seen in its entirety. In terms of how good or bad the story turns out to be, it's irrelevant as to whether or not the overall plot sounds great or poor on paper. For all we know, when we watch the story on screen it could be amazing or it could be piss poor beyond our wildest dreams, we don't know the degree to which we'll love or hate a story until we see it on screen.

It's entirely possible that two different film crews can take one plot and make drastically different films, one of which has a story that you love and buy into and one that has a story you absolutely hate and don't believe in.

I don't know though, maybe it's just me, but I don't like any particular genre of film, I just like good films regardless of what the overall plot is.

In regards to this film, if the story turns out to be mediocre in the end then so be it, however watching 25 minutes of the first act of a 120+ minute film isn't fair to gauge how we'll react to the overall story in the end.

I wouldn't judge the movie until you see it. That goes for both sides. I don't see how anyone could shrug at a story they haven't seen told yet.

I have to admit the singular thing I look most forward to, is seeing Sigourney Weaver in a new Sci-Fi movie.

If he's anything, he's this century's answer to Bill Castle.



Aaaaaavaaaaaataaaaaaar!!! The all new epic in 3-D-Feel-Around-Smell-O-Pano-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong-Vision!!!!!!

DOes this mean that In a few years John Goodman will play Cameron in a movie?

Sorry, no dice. It came off exactly like you were saying "The plot in Avatar is irrelevant!! You will love this film because everyone who worked on it is a Golden God!!" if you really meant for that line to be a general statement about film, you could have been more clear about it, given the postthat happened right before yours.

Please. Name a single Pixar film that sounded mediocre on paper to anyone except those without a sherd of imagination? Every single thing they have done has been exceedingly story driven, even the mess that was Cars had a very clear plotline and something to say. But teh underlying thing with their films is that they are FOR KIDS. The stories tend to be simple, as do the ideas behind the stories. It's the writing that elevates these ideas to modern-day fairy tales.


Ok, the hobby thing was out of line, but for the love of God would you stop it with shit like "expressing some sort of irrational doubt" ?? Why oh why are people's opinions about Avatar in any way irrational? Mainly they are anecdotal, some are based on people's experience with ACTUALLY VIEWING FOOTAGE, but when a guy says "I told my friends what the movie was about and they got all glassy-eyed and bored looking", he's not being irrational. He's recounting to us an actual conversation he's had. Unless you think the story is so amazingly complex that it is too hard for people to explain? Oh wait, story and plot don't matter...

You really had me there. I thought you were being sarcastic, to my horror halfway through that rambling set of thoughts I realized you are actually serious about this.

What you say is even more troubling given that main focus of this film, as presented to us, is in the technical department. So hearing that plot is not that important paired with that is really discouraging.

You're doing a great job of making this film, which I know little about (aside from some of the technical claims), sound even less interesting.

You are a pioneer in anti-marketing!

Ya know, as skeptical as I am about Avatar, I like Cameron as a director, it's big budget sci fi done with some passion and care, and I'll end up seeing his movie.

Compare that to something like the new GI Joe flick; I just caught the trailer again during Sports Center, and...nothing. Zero interest. It's a rental, if not a wait-for-cable flick. Despite good or mixed buzz, some movies, like Avatar, have an inherent gotta-see-it factor. Joe? At most, it gets a shrug from me.

I'm wondering if that's marketing, or just concepts where someone is interested or just, nobody cares. Spielberg's Tin tin is another example: I'm sure in Europe they love that property. Me? Again, shrug.

I guess you fail to understand how a plot is very different from a story. A plot gives you very little, it's merely a pitch, however what matters is the fusion of plot with all the film making elements that turns the film into a compelling story. The plot of terminator isn't all that special or original, for example, however film making elements combined together and made the story interesting, making us care about the fate of a robot. What really matters is the storytelling here, not necessarily the story itself. In the hands of lesser creators Terminator could have been abysmal and no one would care about the story, for example.

Granted, good plots naturally are easier to be told as good stories, but that does not mean in the hands of a good storyteller it's impossible for a seemingly bad or simple plot to turn into a good, well told story.

I get the feeling you've just backed yourself into a semantic corner now that you're too stubborn to cop to.

Explain. I've backed myself into no corner. You're the ones dealing with semantics here. The fact remains, good stories can be made from seemingly bad plots and bad stories can be made from seemingly great plots, it just matters on whether or not the storyteller is talented enough to craft something worthwhile from the plot regardless of how the less imaginative think it can or can't be molded.

The only thing I grant is that some plots take less talent and imagination to turn into a good story and finished product, however that is all I'll backtrack on, only because I failed to provide additional nuance in my initial post. I did not think it would have been such a big deal in first place so I've had to clarify the initial statement.

Pepe your posts seem to be all over the place. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with the contention a skilful film maker can elevate the material at hand (yet, you keep on repeating this same point over and over). Even a seemingly unfinished script like the last Star Treks was made into quite a good film. But these points are a fry cry from claiming the specific plot is altogether irrelevant.

And I fully expect Duke Fleed to pull a PeeWee Herman at his first screening of Avatar.

That's bullshit. I have yet to watch White Chicks, but I feel pretty damn safe in declaring its story a big bag of cock. Any film fan who claims that they don't judge films they haven't seen is either a liar or a retard.

I get your point, and not to get all English Lit anal here, but I think the term you're looking for in place of 'plot' is 'premise'.

The plot is the actual A-B-C....etc., events linking a story together, the actual scenes and sequences that make up a story. When you read a story outline, and it's multiple bullet points or pages long, that's describing the plot.

The summary capsule version, in the familiar TV guide sense, i.e. who is the story about and what does he/she want, is the premise.

I have to say that agree with Pepe, who's made good and consistent points - admittedly the first one about plot was simplified in a way that was bound to be misunderstood by someone. I have no idea about his post history, just going on what I've read in this thread. It seemed to me that his message was in response to the "avatar plot made my friend yawn", but wasn't specifically about Avatar.

According to Tremaine's definitions, I still think that good screenplays can (and have) been written from lousy plots by good screenwriters. And it's no stretch that good films can be made out of those by good filmmakers.

Regarding the comment about Pixar movie plots, I think the plot of Toy Story sounds pretty boring. For me, it's the characters and dialog that make that a good film.

While I'm actually posting here, I don't really understand all the box office talk about Avatar... Haven't there been several $200 million dollar budget movies in the last 5 or so years? If so, most would have had the same distribution/marketing costs, wouldn't they? What's the difference between those and Avatar? I read most articles on the main pages here most days (don't do a lot of forum reading), and I haven't seen any hype at all, from Cameron or CHUD. Most people will hear about the movie first from TV trailers, so I just can't see any hype, over-hype, or so called backlash will have any significant effect on BO. Unless Avatar's budget is actually way more than the quoted $200M, this whole discussion seems pointless...

Yeah I ws going to say, sounded an awful lot like he was talking about the pitch made to get the film greenlighted, and not the actual plot. But words, those guys guys could mean ANYTHING these days, so I am afraid your semantic games were for naught Mr. Tremaine.

Ok, guy-with-zero-post-count-who-is-more-than-likely-sitting-right-beside-Pepe-typing-this, how exactly was that post NOT about Avatar? Given that this is an Avatar thread and given how soon after the "yawning friend" comment it showed up, I am gonna say that the post was EXACTLY about Avatar, and Pepe was just backpeddling for the rest of the thread as to not look like a total Avatard. Oh, and the reason it was misunderstood? Pepe doesn't know his definitions very well. Pitch/premise != plot. Any asshole can take a good premise and develop a great movie out of it. You know what usually happens in that process? Someone actually writes a story. That story, 9.95 times out of 10? Has a plot.

Please be careful, I would hate to see you injure yourself with the incredible amount of reaching you're doing to back up your friend. Tremaine's definitions are what the words actually mean, not an interpretation of that meaning. You are still using the word to mean 'premise'.

Maybe because you're not a little kid?? Pixar was the absolute worst company to use as an example of how a creative team can make a movie out of a bad plot, but keep on digging! There MUST be a pony under all of this horseshit somewhere!!

I guess if you can't be bothered reading through the rest of the thread (and at only a few pages, you really really can't be bothered it would seem), I'll sum up. The budget, with eventual marketing costs, is coming up close to 1 billion dollars (and that is a conservative estimate). That is what makes a discussion about how this movie is going to turn out actually interesting. If the budget was 200M, then yeah, this thing would make it back in B.O. and DVD sales easy and who cares if the story was meh. Hence the article by Devin, hence the reason any of us are bothering with the discussion.