Avatar! yawn

[CosmicBills]

yeah man, that's true. but every now and again those tent pole movies kill it (and end up making giant piles of money) which makes the bland nothing blockbusters (Transformers 1/2, Avatar etc etc) even worse. Star Trek was actually a pretty decent movie. the Bourne movies are solid, The Dark Knight is amazing, the first 2 Spiderman movies are great...lots of examples.

 

Cameron, to me, has gone the way of George Lucas. He has crawled way too far up his own special effects ass. The film merely is a delivery system for whatever new effects program he commissioned.

Oh, I don't disagree that it's entirely possible for a tent pole movie to kill it. And I think it's a shame that more Studios don't aim for that result (rather than just BO numbers). And yes, Transformers 1 and 2 were MISERABLE.

 

As a guy who's stuff is generally geared in the tent pole, summer genre, I'll say that as a writer, I don't ever AIM for crap. And I'll say that I've never written crap. But, during development, casting, studio meetings, director notes etc etc, the original ideas and concepts get ... muddled. Trek is a great example of a script that was protected all the way through writing and production because Paramount gave Abrams, Lindleof, Kurtzman & Orci the ability to protect their original idea(s). Sadly, it doesn't always happen that way.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Don't you just love how these useless Hollywood people like Ron Howard and Cameron think they're in a position to pimp their political and social views? I for one refuse to see Avatar because it looks like a lousy movie.

[CosmicBills]

Don't you just love how these useless Hollywood people like Ron Howard and Cameron think they're in a position to pimp their political and social views? I for one refuse to see Avatar because it looks like a lousy movie.

Cameron isn't one to "pimp" his political views. Avatar has a very Green message, but it's more in line with Dances with Wolves than any sort of left wing message.

 

But I don't see anything wrong with Howard, Cameron or anyone using films to send messages. Film is, after all, an art form. Like novels, poems, painting, music. And art is the cauldren of social and political change. So why can't they use their films and their art to express their views? How is it any different than what Shakespeare, Wilde, Swift or anyone else has ever done throughout history?

[Astrojanitor]

Cameron isn't one to "pimp" his political views. Avatar has a very Green message, but it's more in line with Dances with Wolves than any sort of left wing message.

 

But I don't see anything wrong with Howard, Cameron or anyone using films to send messages. Film is, after all, an art form. Like novels, poems, painting, music. And art is the cauldren of social and political change. So why can't they use their films and their art to express their views? How is it any different than what Shakespeare, Wilde, Swift or anyone else has ever done throughout history?

 

Totally agree. A good filmmaker has a responsibility to speak to their point of view...but then the good filmmaker can artfully make his case so it does not feel like preaching. Few people complain Bob Dylan or Springsteen are "too liberal," but films always take heat. As a film scholar it depresses the hell out of me viewers demand movies to be politically neutral and bland. One of my favorite films is "A Face in the Crowd," a brilliant satire from 1955 or 6. If that film was made today Fox news would explode.

 

Now sometimes a political agenda passes into propaganda (John Q anyone?), but a film like "Wall E" can be populist and carry a "liberal" message about consumerism and the environment. "Avatar" is kind of a post-colonialists wet dream, and I can respect that. It's just I do not feel Cameron is a very talented writer or director. Problem is he can solve any narrative issues with money. I was watching an interview with tarantino last night and he was saying he shoots his films in 6 weeks in order to keep up the energy and to force himself to work through problems on the fly. Cameron could use some of that attitude

[billsfan89]

I haven't seen Avatar to me it just seems like a movie that uses too much CGI. A few of my buddies saw it and said it looked really cool but the story was average and up its own ass with messages.

 

I think that CGI if used too much makes the movie feel sterile. Compare the Lord of the Rings movies and the First Star Wars trilogy to the Star Wars Prequels. In Lord of the Rings there were a lot of special effects BUT there were also a lot of real environments being used as well (They used a lot of places in New Zealand) this made the movie feel much more real even though there were a lot of effects used.

 

Then look at the Original Star Wars Trilogy. There was little if any Blue Screens used and the primary scenes were shot on actual sets. By using real environments you don't get taken out of the movie as much. The characters are interacting with there environment directly as opposed to a Blue Screen where they have to be told what the environment looks like.

 

Now one of the reasons why the Star Wars Prequels sucked (Put Bad writing, casting, direction, bad pacing and bad story decisions as some of the other reasons) is because the actors where in front of Blue Screens trying to project what the environment actually is. While a actor in LOTR movies didn't have to imagine they were in a forest because they actually were in one.

 

CGI should be used as a complement to actual environments not as the whole means for the movies visuals. CGI only comes off as sterile and uninteresting and not standing the test of time.

[billsfan89]

Cameron isn't one to "pimp" his political views. Avatar has a very Green message, but it's more in line with Dances with Wolves than any sort of left wing message.

 

But I don't see anything wrong with Howard, Cameron or anyone using films to send messages. Film is, after all, an art form. Like novels, poems, painting, music. And art is the cauldren of social and political change. So why can't they use their films and their art to express their views? How is it any different than what Shakespeare, Wilde, Swift or anyone else has ever done throughout history?

 

The way I look at movies with "Leftist" messages is that its not always intentional or a vehicle for political agendas. I mean regardless of what your political beliefs are you have to admit that "Right" political views aren't always ones that lend themselves to entertainment.

 

I think that some film makers do have political agendas to their film making BUT that a lot of movies "Agendas" are more implied by the viewer then actually being something intentional. I actually had a friend tell me that the message of Terminator is one that is very "Left" because it is anti-industry.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Cameron isn't one to "pimp" his political views. Avatar has a very Green message, but it's more in line with Dances with Wolves than any sort of left wing message.

 

Dances With Wolves is one of THE most anti-America films ever created.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Totally agree. A good filmmaker has a responsibility to speak to their point of view...but then the good filmmaker can artfully make his case so it does not feel like preaching.

 

This is what I'm saying. I don't care about a message, but some filmmakers just don't know when to call it quits. Take Olvier Stone for example. Really? We get it you hate capitalism, conservatism, and generally anyone right of Huey Long. All of his movies are sermons, and only one by my reckoning is worth the celluloid it was filmed on: Wall Street.

 

Howard is another perfect example. Think he's got a beef with the Roman Catholic Church? I sure do after watching The DaVinci Code. Couldn't make it any more obvious. Note: I'm no fan of Roman Catholicism, but I'm not going to rant about it for two hours.

 

Those are just two examples. Then there's the slew of global-warming disaster movies, the anti-war movies, the anti-America films that all number in the dozens. You know which ones I'm talking about. Milk, The Day After Tomorrow, Platoon, Religulous, Fahrenheit 9/11, Erin Brockovich, Dances With Wolves and on and on and on. It always makes me chuckle when lefties claim no leftist bias in Hollywood or the media when the OVERWHELMING balance of evidence points to a definite agenda.

[billsfan89]

This is what I'm saying. I don't care about a message, but some filmmakers just don't know when to call it quits. Take Olvier Stone for example. Really? We get it you hate capitalism, conservatism, and generally anyone right of Huey Long. All of his movies are sermons, and only one by my reckoning is worth the celluloid it was filmed on: Wall Street.

 

Howard is another perfect example. Think he's got a beef with the Roman Catholic Church? I sure do after watching The DaVinci Code. Couldn't make it any more obvious. Note: I'm no fan of Roman Catholicism, but I'm not going to rant about it for two hours.

 

Those are just two examples. Then there's the slew of global-warming disaster movies, the anti-war movies, the anti-America films that all number in the dozens. You know which ones I'm talking about. Milk, The Day After Tomorrow, Platoon, Religulous, Fahrenheit 9/11, Erin Brockovich, Dances With Wolves and on and on and on. It always makes me chuckle when lefties claim no leftist bias in Hollywood or the media when the OVERWHELMING balance of evidence points to a definite agenda.

 

I don't see how Erin Brockovich is an intentionally "Left" movie. What was the script writer suppose to do have Erin sue on behalf of an industry? That just wouldn't be very entertaining. I don't doubt there is a "Left" bias BUT I doubt that every movie that has a perceived bias isn't just written to be entertaining and its mostly something that is overly looked into.

 

As I said "Right" messages just don't always lend themselves to entertainment as well as "Left" messages which further bolsters the perception of a overwhelming bias.

[Astrojanitor]

This is what I'm saying. I don't care about a message, but some filmmakers just don't know when to call it quits. Take Olvier Stone for example. Really? We get it you hate capitalism, conservatism, and generally anyone right of Huey Long. All of his movies are sermons, and only one by my reckoning is worth the celluloid it was filmed on: Wall Street.

 

Howard is another perfect example. Think he's got a beef with the Roman Catholic Church? I sure do after watching The DaVinci Code. Couldn't make it any more obvious. Note: I'm no fan of Roman Catholicism, but I'm not going to rant about it for two hours.

 

Those are just two examples. Then there's the slew of global-warming disaster movies, the anti-war movies, the anti-America films that all number in the dozens. You know which ones I'm talking about. Milk, The Day After Tomorrow, Platoon, Religulous, Fahrenheit 9/11, Erin Brockovich, Dances With Wolves and on and on and on. It always makes me chuckle when lefties claim no leftist bias in Hollywood or the media when the OVERWHELMING balance of evidence points to a definite agenda.

 

religulous and Fahrenheit 9/11 don't count at all, they are opinion page "documentaries" which is a whole 'nother animal.

 

Erin Brockovich and Milk are docudramas; compelling stories that actually happened. Is Erin Brockovich against capitalism? Maybe, but those capitalist were giving cancer to hundreds of people. And harvey Milk was murdered for trying to get equal rights for gays and lesbians. Would a conservative point of view be sympathetic to the murder of Harvey Milk? the guy was murdered for demanding freedom and equal rights....is that not an American ideal? hard to see your point with those two examples.

 

However a film like John Q or The Contender are democrat wet dreams. But then it's not like the conservative point isn't hammered home constantly. In classic Hollywood look at "On the waterfront" or everything starring John Wayne. Or more currently look at the military fetishism of Michael Bay or whatever the hell GI Joe was. Or maybe "Disturbia" or "Eagle Eye," both of which are essentially love letters to the Patriot Act. It has always gone both ways, but the anti-leftys tend to be more vocal, and organized, when a film dares to speak against their point of view.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

However a film like John Q or The Contender are democrat wet dreams. But then it's not like the conservative point isn't hammered home constantly. In classic Hollywood look at "On the waterfront" or everything starring John Wayne.

 

Been a long time since the Duke made a movie.

 

Or more currently look at the military fetishism of Michael Bay or whatever the hell GI Joe was. Or maybe "Disturbia" or "Eagle Eye," both of which are essentially love letters to the Patriot Act. It has always gone both ways, but the anti-leftys tend to be more vocal, and organized, when a film dares to speak against their point of view.

 

I didn't get that feeling from Eagle Eye, never have seen Disturbia. Military fetishism? Never heard that one before. I think Michael Bay's movies are inane, mindless entertainment. You never addressed Stone's work or Howard's.

 

I think a movie can be entertaining and thought-provoking without being a sermon.

[CosmicBills]

Dances With Wolves is one of THE most anti-America films ever created.

 

There's a big difference between anti-American and historical. Dances with Wolves is NOT anti-American. It depicts the plight of the Native Americans and the suffering inflicted upon them during manisfestdestiny. But, rather than show that plight through purely Native American eyes -- thus giving an overwhelming majority of the audience no access point -- Michael Blake used an American hero as his entry point. Costner's war torn hero was not Anti-American. He was anti oppression (against slavery and the massacre of an entire indiginous people).

 

You can't white-wash history. It happened. And telling stories about it to keep the horrors (as well as the uplifting moments) fresh in people's mind isn't a bad thing. And certainly isn't Anti-American. It would be more Anti-American to pretend that those events never took place.

 

This is what I'm saying. I don't care about a message, but some filmmakers just don't know when to call it quits. Take Olvier Stone for example. Really? We get it you hate capitalism, conservatism, and generally anyone right of Huey Long. All of his movies are sermons, and only one by my reckoning is worth the celluloid it was filmed on: Wall Street.

 

Howard is another perfect example. Think he's got a beef with the Roman Catholic Church? I sure do after watching The DaVinci Code. Couldn't make it any more obvious. Note: I'm no fan of Roman Catholicism, but I'm not going to rant about it for two hours.

 

Those are just two examples. Then there's the slew of global-warming disaster movies, the anti-war movies, the anti-America films that all number in the dozens. You know which ones I'm talking about. Milk, The Day After Tomorrow, Platoon, Religulous, Fahrenheit 9/11, Erin Brockovich, Dances With Wolves and on and on and on. It always makes me chuckle when lefties claim no leftist bias in Hollywood or the media when the OVERWHELMING balance of evidence points to a definite agenda.

 

Oliver Stone is a special case in that he has, and always will be a product of the political turmoil of the Vietnam era. His work reflects that and, though I disagree with a lot of his views, his work is important in the grand scope of cinematic history -- at least American cinematic history -- BECAUSE it espouses such a vibrant point of view. That said, I agree 100% that no one likes to be preached to. The best films leave their messages buried in the subtext rather than hit you over the head with it ...

 

The DaVinci Code is not really Ron Howard sending any sort of message. Dan Brown on the other hand ... But Howard, if anything, toned down the messages in that book and made it VERY bland and accessible to everyone. He was not, in my opinion, bashing the Church. If he had, the film might have been good or at least more entertaining. Instead he did a very PC, paint by numbers rendition that is one of his worst films of his otherwise impressive career.

 

As for the rest, Astro already pointed out Milk and Erin Brocovich issues. Those aren't agendas. Those are, much like Dances with Wolves, pieces of American History that need to be made. Especially Harvey Milk who, outside of the Gay and Lesbian community, was pretty much unknown. His story, his sacrifice and what it says about where we are as a country even now is important.

[Astrojanitor]

Been a long time since the Duke made a movie.

 

 

 

I didn't get that feeling from Eagle Eye, never have seen Disturbia. Military fetishism? Never heard that one before. I think Michael Bay's movies are inane, mindless entertainment. You never addressed Stone's work or Howard's.

 

I think a movie can be entertaining and thought-provoking without being a sermon.

 

Ron Howard is a nothing director...can't really think of many movies he made. DaVinci Code was an adaptation and was highly controversial in its depiction of the Catholic Church. I think the anti-Church stuff was far more Dan Brown than Ron Howard. but Howard did direct Apollo 13, and I don't think there was a blatant liberal agenda in Splash or How the Grinch Stole Christmas. To be brutally honest, I don't think Ron Howard is interesting enough of a director to sneak any kind of message into his movies. Actually, now looking at his imdb page, I see Gung Ho as well as Apollo 13, Far and Away, backdraft, Parenthood...lot of conservative films.

 

Stone is a guy who lost all credibility years ago. like Michael Moore, everyone knows where Stone's politics are. So, like Moore, only people who agree with his point of view actually see his movies. it's actually not really worth complaining about Stone (or Moore) because they admit, and project, their bias. And, more importantly, only preach to the converted. Which is the number one reason why Michael Moore (or Oliver Stone, Bill O'reilly, Glenn beck, etc etc) is a waste of everyone's time. They don't start conversation, they create self righteous indignation.

 

When people complain about Hollywood's liberal bias I like to think they are mostly concerned about those messages being sneaked into the narrative. As in you think the film is about aliens or whatever, but in reality the entire film is an awkward metaphor for the war on terror, or whatever. But I contend that since Hollywood's number one priority is turning a profit they tend to stay fairly neutral to slightly conservative, as that is largely the pulse of the nation.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

There's a big difference between anti-American and historical. Dances with Wolves is NOT anti-American. It depicts the plight of the Native Americans and the suffering inflicted upon them during manisfestdestiny. But, rather than show that plight through purely Native American eyes -- thus giving an overwhelming majority of the audience no access point -- Michael Blake used an American hero as his entry point. Costner's war torn hero was not Anti-American. He was anti oppression (against slavery and the massacre of an entire indiginous people).

 

You can't white-wash history. It happened. And telling stories about it to keep the horrors (as well as the uplifting moments) fresh in people's mind isn't a bad thing. And certainly isn't Anti-American. It would be more Anti-American to pretend that those events never took place.

 

You can't white-wash history, but you certainly CAN apply a tint to ensure a politically correct adherence to revisionist history. Wars of all kinds (including the conflict between the US Army and American Indians) are fought by two parties, and atrocities are committed by both sides. By portraying the American Indian as unadulterated victim, you indulge yet another attack on white America. Anyone who's intellectually honest can see that DWW is a not-so-subtle attack on America and it's treatment of non-white people.

[Astrojanitor]

This is what I'm saying. I don't care about a message, but some filmmakers just don't know when to call it quits. Take Olvier Stone for example. Really? We get it you hate capitalism, conservatism, and generally anyone right of Huey Long. All of his movies are sermons, and only one by my reckoning is worth the celluloid it was filmed on: Wall Street.

 

I'm not much of an Oliver Stone fan, but he does have some great smaller movies hidden amongst the nonsense. "U Turn" and "Talk radio" are both brilliant. And "natural born killers" is such an insane and audacious film that it can not be ignored. personally that movie gives me a headache, but wow is it ever alive.

[CosmicBills]

You can't white-wash history, but you certainly CAN apply a tint to ensure a politically correct adherence to revisionist history. Wars of all kinds (including the conflict between the US Army and American Indians) are fought by two parties, and atrocities are committed by both sides. By portraying the American Indian as unadulterated victim, you indulge yet another attack on white America. Anyone who's intellectually honest can see that DWW is a not-so-subtle attack on America and it's treatment of non-white people.

And in Dances with Wolves there are several scenes of the Natives attacking White Settlers -- brutally. Scalping them. Killing them. Kidnapping them. It's all in there. And just as Lieutenant Dunbar has a change of heart, so to does Kicking Bird -- the ultra violent, ultra anti-white warrior.

 

Dances with Wolves isn't an attack. Europeans (and by extension Americans) have had a long and very bloody history with their treatment of non-whites.

[billsfan89]

You can't white-wash history, but you certainly CAN apply a tint to ensure a politically correct adherence to revisionist history. Wars of all kinds (including the conflict between the US Army and American Indians) are fought by two parties, and atrocities are committed by both sides. By portraying the American Indian as unadulterated victim, you indulge yet another attack on white America. Anyone who's intellectually honest can see that DWW is a not-so-subtle attack on America and it's treatment of non-white people.

 

Once again maybe there was a more entertainment decision made rather then a political one? The Native Americans in dances with wolves is a group that is suppose to be sympathetic oppressed group. By showing them committing war crimes you take away the protagonist nature of the group. So not every movie is an attack on White America. The Native Americans obviously had to have done some bad things during that time BUT they clearly got the short end of the stick when it comes to the whole issue of we (And the British, Spanish, and French among others) took their land and committed war crimes in both colonial history and American history.

 

Not every movie is made to try and drive home a message. Dances with Wolves showing the Native Americans as the victim is done to drive home the nature of the protagonist. AND there were scenes of the Native Americans killing white settlers.

[Astrojanitor]

You can't white-wash history, but you certainly CAN apply a tint to ensure a politically correct adherence to revisionist history. Wars of all kinds (including the conflict between the US Army and American Indians) are fought by two parties, and atrocities are committed by both sides. By portraying the American Indian as unadulterated victim, you indulge yet another attack on white America. Anyone who's intellectually honest can see that DWW is a not-so-subtle attack on America and it's treatment of non-white people.

 

The problem with that point of view is that the American Indian is not in a position of power. there is no threat of communities on reservations in Oklahoma attacking settlements. By all accounts their violence was more defensive anyway. And, not for nothing, there have been literally thousands of films depicting Indian brutality. Some brilliant ("the searchers") some not (every western pre-"Stagecoach"). DWW is less finger pointy than accepting responsibility. The key is that it was made by a white American. The film, and its success, shows a willingness to own and learn from the past. very important in that regard. The film belies a very American attitude in that allows for mistakes made and moves to correct them. It's why the constitution has amendments.

 

Now this is coming from a guy who feel "Schindler's List" is too one-sided (it's true, I do). personally I feel DWW's honesty makes it a very "American" film.

[CosmicBills]

Ron Howard is a nothing director...

 

When people complain about Hollywood's liberal bias I like to think they are mostly concerned about those messages being sneaked into the narrative. As in you think the film is about aliens or whatever, but in reality the entire film is an awkward metaphor for the war on terror, or whatever. But I contend that since Hollywood's number one priority is turning a profit they tend to stay fairly neutral to slightly conservative, as that is largely the pulse of the nation.

 

I'm not sure it's fair to say that Howard is a "nothing director". It all depends on what measuring stick you're using. From a stylistic perspective, you might be right. He is not really an innovator by any stretch of the imagination. But from a storytelling perspective and a longevity perspective, Howard will be remembered as one of the most beloved American Directors long after he's hung up the slate. He launched the career of Tom Hanks and directed him to several Oscar worthy performances, he created Imagine Entertainment with Grazer and together they have had their hands in a number of huge commercial successes in the past 15 years. When you factor in the scope of his entire career from child star to one of the elite A List directors in the studio system, it's quite impressive.

 

As for your second point, I think you're absolutely dead on. The studio system cares about Box Office and DVD sales first and they do everything they can (intentionally and unintentionally) to drive every script in pre-production as close to the middle as they can to try to find the vaunted "four quadrant" movie that will dominate at the Box Office. This, in many cases, is a disaster because it kills a lot of the POV and creative spirit of the original piece of material. Some Studios have bucked this trend by setting up "art house" branches (Paramount Vantage, Fox Searchlight etc) ... but those enterprises have largely faltered (and closed) because their box office numbers weren't strong enough.

 

Having been out here now for a brief period of time, one thing is very clear. While the people with the most press time are fairly left leaning (the actors, directors and top producers), the people with the real power in town (studios) are all run by HUGE conglomerates that are, by in large, very conservative by nature (Rupert Murdoch, Time Warner, General Electric, Sony and Disney). It's harder than you think to get a left leaning message film made INSIDE the Hollywood system. Most of them are made by independent producers who attach a name star to their "passion project".

[Astrojanitor]

I'm not sure it's fair to say that Howard is a "nothing director". It all depends on what measuring stick you're using. From a stylistic perspective, you might be right. He is not really an innovator by any stretch of the imagination. But from a storytelling perspective and a longevity perspective, Howard will be remembered as one of the most beloved American Directors long after he's hung up the slate. He launched the career of Tom Hanks and directed him to several Oscar worthy performances, he created Imagine Entertainment with Grazer and together they have had their hands in a number of huge commercial successes in the past 15 years. When you factor in the scope of his entire career from child star to one of the elite A List directors in the studio system, it's quite impressive.

 

As for your second point, I think you're absolutely dead on. The studio system cares about Box Office and DVD sales first and they do everything they can (intentionally and unintentionally) to drive every script in pre-production as close to the middle as they can to try to find the vaunted "four quadrant" movie that will dominate at the Box Office. This, in many cases, is a disaster because it kills a lot of the POV and creative spirit of the original piece of material. Some Studios have bucked this trend by setting up "art house" branches (Paramount Vantage, Fox Searchlight etc) ... but those enterprises have largely faltered (and closed) because their box office numbers weren't strong enough.

 

Having been out here now for a brief period of time, one thing is very clear. While the people with the most press time are fairly left leaning (the actors, directors and top producers), the people with the real power in town (studios) are all run by HUGE conglomerates that are, by in large, very conservative by nature (Rupert Murdoch, Time Warner, General Electric, Sony and Disney). It's harder than you think to get a left leaning message film made INSIDE the Hollywood system. Most of them are made by independent producers who attach a name star to their "passion project".

 

Ron Howard has had a terrific career and has made many films that are, for lack of a better term, beloved. And, from what I understand, one of the truly decent people in the industry. But, coming from within the academy, he and Speilberg are considered shorthand for what is wrong with contemporary filmmaking. There is nothing Howard does that makes his films his own. he is a director without edge or a point of view. he is a brilliant businessman, and he does know how to get people into theaters. but man, I have dedicated my life to studying film. I try to watch a couple films a day and have been doing so for about 15 years now. I couldn't name 3 Ron Howard films without looking at his imdb page. That, to me, is a sign of a pretty poor artist. When I say he is a nothing director it's because I feel literally any professional filmmaker could have done those movies. there's just no such thing as a "Ron Howard film." At least Speilberg has his suffocating sentimentality.