An AVATAR Crew Member Can't Take Criticism - Page 8

Nabster, That is so...uncool.

That is pretty much my opinion on "Avatar". Sure I will go and see it, but I am pretty skeptical about it. My big fear is that plot and character have been totally sacrificed to the visuals, and the film will be,in effect, the world's most expensive demo reel for Cameron's new technology.
And as far as anticipated Holiday films, "The Lovely Bones" is way ahead of Avatar on my list.

Seeing as how every penny tends to be obviously onscreen in his movies, and he's never been one to waste anything...that's gonna be a pretty damn good demo reel which I wouldn't mind seeing a couple times (if it doesn't completely suck, which I doubt...even Cameron's worst is totally watchable).

It's best to treat it like a blank state...pretend you don't even know who Cameron is and it's his first flick...you'll probably enjoy yourself a helluva lot more. But its up to you where you want your head at come December 18th.

And I'm seriously considering avoiding all trailers and ads for this movie...I've never done that before. It's gonna be hard, but I wanna walk in and just experience the movie without any preconceived notions. I think it'll be a cool experiment for myself.

So, in other words, ignore what is arguably the main selling point of the film.

To be fair, this IS the first adventure movie he has done in years, so who knows how traditionally "Cameron" this film will be you know? From what yt says, he's lost none of his ability to create convincing ensembles of people who are believably tight/have previous history and have that show up on the screen. I am not going into the film forgetting it's a Cameron flick, I am going into the film hoping that the time he's spent away he's been learning new things and growing as an artist, and will knock it out of the park. Speaking as a general sci-fi geek, I would love it if this thing met even 10% of the hype.

Piranha 2?

Yeah, I agree with this definition. I would indeed substitute plot with premise in my original and subsequent posts, but then again the original guy complaining about the plot was really just complaining about the premise as it is defined here anyway.

Who would that be? I think you're the only one who thought plot was a simple premise.

Nabster's post about his friend:

I doubt very seriously Nabster read the finished script to him and gave him a complete rundown of the plot, from point A to B to C, etc.

If all this fuss was over a simple err in definition over premise and plot then I'm sorry, but if you're getting all wound up over my twisting of a word why didn't you call out the original post and instead pick on mine only? Is it just because the original post validated your own world belief yet mine somehow caused you concern, reflecting your own bias in the end?

I'd watch this before TRUE LIES or TITANIC, every single time. It is pure entertainment.

reggie-wanker, Piranha 2 does not compare to...True Lies (James Cameron's best film) in any way, shape, or form. P2 may be entertaining, but True Lies is the best imitation of a Bond film yet.

RAGE!!!

Yeah, chill the hell out dude.

Again, if you read the original post, I was replying to Nabster who used the word "plot" when giving his friend the premise. If he originally said "premise" then I also would have used premise in my reply. In the end, you're the guy arguing over semantics who didn't appear to understand this easily corrected mistake. A simple, "you mean premise when you said plot, a plot means XX and premise means YY" would have been a much more civil reply if you really gave a shit about the use of the word originally.

Why nod your head in approval at Nabster's post (which also misused the word) and bash mine if you really cared about this definition? Or did you not even see his post, implying you don't even know what I was referring to in the first place? If so, please read what a post is in response to before making your own reply, it will improve your thinking on the issue and help you formulate a relevant response, keeping the discussion on topic.

You can say I've been back peddling all you want, but just saying I am doesn't make it so. I made like one change in order to clarify my thinking behind the original post in saying that some premises are easier to make than others (exchanging plot for premise now), however it is still true that a talented enough filmmaker can make a worthwhile film out of any premise. I've backtracked on absolutely nothing else.

As for the Pixar talk, it's my personal opinion that the premises behind the films I mentioned sound fucking dumb on paper, if you think otherwise then so be it, we're just got different opinions about what sounds like a good premise.

I hope a skilled film-maker can do something creative with the boring premise of this thread before I ... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Not like there's much more to talk about regarding the topic title. Hasn't AVATAR discussion already been thoroughly exhausted?

So replying to what he said means you can not use words correctly? Why is it up to us to interpret anything coming out of your keyboard? Here's a thought: if you meant premise, or you didn't understand what the word plot meant, say so.

I wasn't the one that got bitten here, chum. You and your little buddy came off not only condescending people with all of this bullshit about how we have to give this movie a chance and how we are irrational so you just HAD to come and post and how it doesn't matter what movies are about garbage, not me. So maybe why don't you read your own advice and take this additional tip: learn what words mean. Also, another tip: be more specific if you are making a general point about film and not just rushing to a film's defense because someone related a story to you about how his friends were bored over the PLOT of Avatar. One more tip: you can't tell people not to read posts you've made in other threads. You sort of shut up with the Avatar defence in the 'District 9' thread when your arguements all fell apart, you could have done that here too, as it's really obvious you couldn't give a shit about movies in general. If this was some other thread about Iron man II and the PLOT was boring my friends to tears, I doubt you would have made the original post about plot not mattering.

You just backpeddled even further. You clearly had no clue what you were talking about. Just because someone was nice and actually gave you a definition of what plot is doesn't mean the original replies we made were wrong. This suppossedly generic point you were trying to make (which just happened to be in an Avatar thread, apaprently) fell apart quick. If what you really meant was premise instead of plot, why didn't YOU come out and tell us that? Why is it up to us to assume you don't know what plot means and really you meant premise? And why would you write that in response to someone relating you a story about how fucking bored his friends were when he told them about Avatar? Do you have exactly zero self-awareness to not notice how that looks in a thread when you do stuff like that?

And you're how old again? The worst thing you did was bring Pixar into a discussion like this, because their audience is CHILDREN. Premises need to be simple because of that, yet Pixar still manages to make great stories with compelling PLOTS that engage even adults. Realizing that not every movie is geared towards you is the first step to realizing you can have different sets of expectations for different kinds of films. You saying that the premises of their films seems 'fucking dumb' is the same thing as saying 'Man, that kid's book Where The Wild Things Are, that shit is just immature and stupid!' The book wasn't written for adults, but if you realize that you can find the beauty in the simplicity.

But hey, the post you quoted wasn't even directed towards you anyways. Where's your friend?

No, don't take it too literally mate. Of course you know it's Cameron. But any technique to clean the grime of expectations off you before you go see it is a good thing. If anyone needs to chant or light candles before the screening, go for it.

His first official film is Terminator. He was fired from Piranah 2 and I believe less than half the movie is his footage...not to mention most creative decisions were made by the producer. It's not a Cameron movie.

Yeah right. It's extremely common for people to interchange plot and premise, something that happens all the time on these message boards. Before actually watching a film no one knows the plot of a film without reading a script or synopsis, yet people still use the word "plot" to really refer to a premise extremely often. Why am I the only guy being called out for this?

I did.

You since have been with your inflammatory posts.

Say what you want about me, but how has this "buddy" of mine come off condescending? He sounded pretty cordial, especially in comparison to you.

I don't see how I've been condescending either, I haven't insulted anyone. I've attempted to provide rational responses to some criticisms here.

What do you have against, specifically, about giving this movie a chance anyhow, and what, specifically, makes that bullshit or evidence of condensation?

What do you mean I just HAD to come and post here? I did it because I wanted to. Also, a premise can indeed sound like garbage and turn into a great film.

Insults against my intelligence, good one! Score one for you!

Yes, I will remember to bust open my dictionary and writing guidebook to help me write out a well thought out, developed Thesis whenever I feel compelled to post a quick two sentence reply.

And his friend was bored over the PREMISE of AVATAR given the agreed upon definition, by the way, NOT the plot.

I never said don't read them, but rather you shouldn't use them to valuate a different, unrelated argument.

Explain this further, I don't get it. I conceded some points after sufficient evidence converted me...God forbid my opinion actually adapts and changes after hearing a valid viewpoint. With that said, several of the issues I raised remain valid and unanswered / agreed upon.

I would have shut up after conceding the premise vs plot definition, which should have clarified and validated my initial argument even further, however people like you kept going and posting this stuff.

What possibly could have given you this impression? The fact that I disagree with you is not relevant. What is your evidence? Simply pointing out that good films can be made from any premise given enough talent it does not mean I don't like movies.

Pure conjecture. If I saw that particular post at the very least I would disagree with it. As to whether or not I would have made a post about it would largely depend on my mood at the time.

Knowing what I was talking about while using slightly off terminology is not the same as not knowing what I was talking about. If I didn't know what I was talking about I wouldn't get posts in agreement with me, understanding what I was talking about.

No it didn't considering people agreed with me at the time (understanding what I meant). Even if it did fall apart it was put back together and made impenetrable after substituting words that are commonly used interchangably by people anyway.

Because premise is often used interchangably with plot and I fell into the trap.

Do you want to be civil and try to understand what I was trying to mean or are you going for a "gotcha" moment? If you want to get at the heart of what I'm saying you will look at the statement I was replying to in the first place, which should clearly tip you off that it was about the premise. And people complain I was arguing semantics? You're the kind of guy deliberately looking for a fight it sounds.

Because I wanted to?

Sorry dude, I guess I forgot to throw on my battle armor and flame shield.

Pixar's audience isn't children, it's people of all ages.

That's precisely my point, you can make great stories and compelling plots from even the most simple premise.

Nowhere did I say I should not have a different set of expectation for different kinds of films. That has nothing to do with a premise however considering a premise by itself has not been shaped into a finished film yet, or even a plot.

There you go again, proving my point. You've brought all this other baggage to the premise, making something that can seem immature and stupid something that can potentially be relevant and have meaning for children and adults alike. It does indeed depend on your perspective, which is where the artistry and talent comes into play if someone wants to turn the premise into something worthwhile. Just because a premise is simple, however, it does not mean it's beautiful UNLESS the talent behind fleshing out that premise into a fully realized plot makes it so.

Except it was full of inferences to me.

Probably smart enough to stay away from this pointless argument.

Pixar movies are quite obviously geared towards children. Their audience is damn near universal, sure, because they're good at what they do. But just because lots of sophisticated adults like Graeme Base books doesn't take away from the fact that they are children's books, nor does that take away from their inherent qualities.

Maybe, except when creators at Pixar make films they first and foremost attempt to make something that would entertain themselves.

Even if you say it's really just an attempt to entertain their inner child or whatever, Pixar films are great because they try specifically to NOT dumb the story down for a younger audience.

Because you brought up that arguement as a lame defence against an anecdote? Again, I am not buying that the only reason you mentioned the premise/plot/story/adverb thing was because you felt like talking about general movie stuff. You're entitled to shill just as hard for a beloved film as much as the next guy, just admit that you are. "Premise doesn't matter!" is the weakest defense for a film I've seen in recent months here on CHUD. If people end up coming away with a 'meh' impression of Avatar, who cares? EVERYONE who's expressed a concern that the film won't live up to the hype is still going to go see it.

That you can't see the retardosity of saying the premise/plot/adverb/unicorn behind a Pixar film is 'fucking stupid', well, I don't know what else to say. It's like trying to judge the premise of a Smurfs cartoon when your 47. No matter how much it makes sense to it's target audience (3-5 year old kids), to you it's gonna seem dumb. Most people are smart enough to realize it though and not use it as a defence. It does not prove that they took a 'weak' premise/plot/cherry pie/Paul Giamatti adnthroughthe talent of all involved transformed it into something magical. They started off with solid ideas in almost all of their films and from that foundation, that set of premises, if you will, they were able to anchor the magic you've seen in theatres. The only person who thinks they are dumb are you. And your little friend.

Try harder. Actually come back with a shit premise that got turned into gold by a production team.

Pixar animated films are aimed children. Nobody said anything about "dumbing down" the story or not making them appeal to adults.

This is a very simple thing to grasp, I understand you're trying to justify your initial position but you're kind of embarrassing yourself. I don't mean that as an insult but as a piece of advise.

Yeah, this is becoming an oft-repeated and extremely weak defense of one's interests these days. Face facts, people: Pixar movies are made for children, the Harry Potter books are made for children, Batman: The Animated Series was made for children. You needn't feel embarrassed about enjoying them, but you should absolutely feel embarrassed if you refuse to admit that you weren't the target audience.

Explain how it's a lame defense when it's the absolute truth and makes sense given the context of the conversation?

It's not that hard of a concept to understand. The statement applied to both AVATAR and all films in general. I wasn't just saying the concept applied to only ONE film, that doesn't make any sense.

Beloved film? Yeah, I'm looking forward to AVATAR just as any other guy, but its not beloved.

I already clarified that, in stating that it does matter in the fact that the less promising sounding a premise is for a given audience the the harder it is or the more creativity is required to make a good film for that audience. What really matters is if sufficient talent can mold that premise to something worthwhile. That's all I'm getting at.

I could care less about the film's box office, I'm more intrigued here about HOW we argue about film, not whether or not this particular film will be successful in the end.

Saying that you should give a film a chance for X reason, or that such and such fear shouldn't be an issue if Y occurs is not actually arguing about the real final quality of a film.

It's entirely dependent on the perspective. All things being equal a premise that appeals only to a child will not appeal to an adult UNLESS the adult has expectations about the potential quality of the finished film given the history of the production company.

From an adult perspective, the premise of Toy Story, Ratatouille, and UP!, amongst others, is not appealing. On paper it sounds ridiculous and something only children could like. In its execution, however, PIXAR is able to take a premise that should appeal only to a children audience (Ok, I admit this now) and make a film that appeals to an adult audience as well. If a film appeals to adults is made from a premise that traditional is only enjoyed by children, serious talent is at work.

As an adult from that premise alone that would not sound like something I would want to watch. From an adult perspective the premise is indeed shit. Whether or not the finished show will actually end up appealing to you depends on whether or not the creators can take that premise that sounds like shit to you and turn it into something you actually end up enjoying.

Kind of my point again. It is indeed all about perspective and personal preferences. The Teletubbies, for example, appeal to an audience of young kids. To an adult the premise of Teletubbies sounds horrible, however that does not mean that it's impossible someone could take the premise and turn it into a finished product that would appeal to adults.

The premises are rooted in things that traditionally appeal to children, not traditionally appealing to adults, however through that creative process they were able to shape those initial premises to something that appeals to adults.

It is entirely possible that another production company could have made a crap film or a film that only appealed to children and not adults even if they had the EXACT same premise to start from.

The problem is you can't seem to separate a premise from the finished film. As demonstrated with the Pixar films, anything I'll come up that was a success as a finished film you'll claim I simply didn't understand why the initial premise was a grand idea to begin with, or that the premise wasn't suppose to appeal to me, when in reality based on the initial premise alone it may not necessarily sound all that great to me.

Burn After Reading is an example off the top of my head. That premise on paper doesn't sound all that special considering nothing really happens in the film (which is what makes it funny in the end). Kill Bill is another example of a premise that isn't all that special on paper, sounding like any other revenge flick. Most love stories have cliched premises that aren't all that special on paper, but there are a few gems that turn out great in the end. All sorts of action films and horror movies falls into this as well.

You've seriously never seen any films that after watching you think to yourself something like, "Man, I shouldn't have enjoyed that film...but I did"?

Maybe the earlier books. The target audience obviously grew in age just as the protagonists did, adapting darker, more involving plots as well as dealing with various different issues kids deal with at various stages in their development.

None of those books involved the characters in their thirties and forties. So a significant portion of the fanbase is still reading something that was intended for an audience significantly younger than them. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as that fanbase will admit it.

So? A child is very different from a teenager. They're how old at the end? 18? By the end they deal will a number of issues that wouldn't apply to a young child.

Drag Me to Hell...another example. An old gypsie woman putting a curse on a woman that failed to provide her an extension on a loan sounded like a horrible premise to a large number of people, even to those familiar with Sam Raimi's previous work.

Are you missing my point on purpose, or are you clinically thick?

Apparently on this message board you should be ready to have every single sentence you say critically examined regardless of what your original point was. It makes no difference what the point was if there is something incorrect or not exact about a statement. Even after admitting the error it makes no difference, how are we to know what the point was? It's not our responsibility apparently.

Pepe, just stop. You're entitled to your opinion even though you're alone in it but your need to engage is making you seem completely insecure. It's very off putting.

I feel my ignore list hungering for more souls.

What do you mean? According to Ludwig I've got a friend somewhere. Furthermore, why don't you tell others to stop considering I'm only continuing because I'm responding to some post or another that's a reply to something I posted?

I have demonstrated I am willing to concede points and arguments so long that I am convinced, such as some of what Ludwig said in the District 9 thread, the additional caveat I added to my initial two sentence post, the stuff about mixing up the premise with plot, and, most recently, the notion that Pixar films are targeted toward children. So long there are issues that have not been resolved I will continue to reply so long that myself and another party feel like posting about it.

Greg, it's obviously a jab at Ludwig, not really you. Sorry you've been caught in the middle of this.

I'm not telling you to stop, I'm pleading with you to stop because you're not arguing with one person, you're arguing with at least four people. And you're doing it badly. Don't be the last word guy.

How so? With all the unnecessary sidetracking, I have not seen anything that contradicts my simple argument:

...The PREMISE of a film isn't as relevant as the degree to which the creators behind the film can fuse film-making elements and turn that premise into a functioning piece of art / entertainment. What can sound like a bad premise for a given audience can turn out to be a great finished film for that same audience, and vice versa...

And I provided a number of films that have potential bad / generic premises that have been turned into great films. Should I also provide potential great premises that have turned out to be bad films as well?

I'm just wondering what the James Horner score is like myself. Been waiting so long for this thing to be released now it seems like forever. Entertainment should just not take this much time, money and effort to produce in my opinion. It's just a flick at the end of the day.

Can you guys please just take all your dueling Internet egos and other irrelevant B.S. to the other AVATAR thread so we can get back to the topic this thread was created for: the Avatard attack on Devin?

Thanks.

There was life left in that topic? My bad.

The letter is pretty dumb, as if the fact that he worked on the project is suppose to give him some sort of credibility or something, when it's the opposite. Simply saying something is going to be fantastic doesn't really prove much unless he has additional info or evidence to provide that has not been released.

Cranky!

I showed my friend, who worked on Avatar for about 1.5 years, Devin's comments. His response: "Yeah. I wish Cameron hadn't said all that 'changing cinema' crap. It's the same technology and FX you always see, but he's just throwing a ton of money at it. The sad part is, the footage shown at con was the best stuff. The rest of the film is being rushed through to hit deadlines and doesn't look as good." I understand where this dude is coming from. When your work is very personal because you slave over it 80 hours a week, and then you feel that someone's kicking your feet out from under you before you get a chance to stand up, you get defensive. Afterall, it's about to be judged by millions. That being said, I always snap out of it and realize that 1) It's entertainment 2) It's not 'you' being judged. That guy is probably 1/800th of the equation. He's not the director or writer or actor etc. He's probably a lighter or an animator. Devin didn't even say anything bad. I hope the guy is embarrassed.

The above post is probably pretty damn close to the truth here. I feel embarassed for the guy too. Not angry, not mocking. Just sorry he showed his ass that way. We all do that from time to time. Not that anyone on this thread has.

Some weird assumptions you've made about me in your post. But ignoring those...

Sure, his original post was related to Avatar, being in the thread and all. But it was still a general comment. "You can make a great movie out of any story if there's sufficient talent behind the project." That's a general statement that i agree with, possibly expressed by Pepe in defense of an opinion about comments on Avatar - but I shouldn't really be making assumptions about other people.

No, I accept Tremaine's definition of plot as different from premise. Personally, I think that the original statement is still true. Pepe may not agree, and his recent posts indicate he may have meant 'premise'.

I think Pixar is a good example. I said that the plot of Toy Story sounds boring to me, but I liked the movie. Sure, it may sound boring because I'm an adult, and it's a kids movie, but the reason it sounds boring is irrelevant. It was a good film, with a plot that sounded boring, and could have been boring without good writers. It turned out to be a good film that even adults could enjoy. Which was exactly my point.

I did read the thread; I wouldn't have posted before doing so. The budget is coming close to a billion dollars? I must have missed that. I read that the production team had said ~$200M, Devin made a guess of more like $300-$400M. Like any movie, people are adding marketing/distribution costs, then doubling to get a 'break even' point. But that's the same for all pictures. IF the Avatar budget is more than any other movie ever made, sure it will need to make more money to recoup costs. But my understanding is that we're not comparing a $300M spiderman3 budget with a billion dollar avatar budget. I don't think that has been suggested anywhere. We're comparing a $300M spiderman3 budget to a $200-$400M Avatar budget, which doesn't seem that significant a story. (Not that I believe Avatar will make more money than spiderman3.)

(A general note: if 'budget' includes marketing and distribution, eg: $500M for Avatar, why 2x to 'break even'? What isn't included?) [Edit - ignore, already answered. Not all ticket sales go to the studio of course.]

Ah cool Marty Jannetty's back.

Ha! I see what you did there.

Someone on IMDB posted a link to a pic of McFarlane's Avatar toy (one of 'em anyway). Is this for real, Comic-Con Avatar footage viewers?

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/mcfarlaneonline_2066_82807775

I hope they actually do have super tiny hands.

I know what you mean about the eyes. The distance apart they are looks like a cartoon...

Every major reveal of the world or characters is more real world or goofy than I was hoping for.



EDIT: For my money it's something closer to this...

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/11/...merons-avatar/

Bit more alien, less goofy looking. The bio luminescent hair is a cool touch.