Avatar! yawn

[billsfan89]

But here's the thing: There's an art to writing popular things. You can hate Michael Jackson but the guy had a certain genius for music. And Stephen King has a certain genius for story-telling. And Cameron has a certain genius for movies. With 2 of his movies making 3 billion dollars and growing, some part of his genius should be hard for anyone to deny.

 

Throw stones at Titanic as a POS not worthy of its 2B revenues but you know what: A shitload of people saw that movie and liked it...even if it's chic to now say it is terrible.

 

Its one thing if you make something and put it out and it becomes popular because its so good (Wither its a band, a movie, or anything else) its another thing to make something to be popular.

 

Something gets lost when you make something just to appeal to as many people as possible. Its becomes a business rather then a art. Now this is America there is nothing wrong with making money and I am not here to say making something to be popular is a wrong thing to do but just don't call it art. I think that making music or movies with the soul purpose of being popular is a business practice.

 

If a Disney executive wanted to go out and find the next Jonas Brothers he wouldn't look for the band that wrote the best lyrics (If they wrote lyrics at all) or was musically the most talented he would go out and find the band with the best look and the most marketable sound. To me at least that isn't art.

 

Same thing with movies. Were the Transformers movies really art? Or did they just pay someone to take their notes and write a script around it. Cast the hottest chick they could find, get Michael Bay to throw in a bunch of special effects, and begin marketing toys around.

 

Give me a band like the Gaslight Anthem over anyone you hear on a top 100 hits station.

[Astrojanitor]

Terminator 2 was a great movie and for some reason the special effects don't really seem that dated to me as you said an oddity for a Cameron movie. BUT Terminator 1 was one of the best if not the best action/science fiction movie ever made. While the special effects are very dated the movie is just so intense and filled with action that isn't over the top but gets the message across very effectively and as you said by far Cameron's best movie.

 

From your posts in this thread you seem to know a lot about movies. I actually dread to ask you your thoughts on Kevin Smith's movies but I will do so anyway.

 

Kevin Smith is a guy who writes brilliantly. Quotable films, they move at a steady pace, exposition is treated seamlessly...all good things. But the guy can't direct to save his life. His films look terrible and he is not good with actors and all. His actors always come off as awkward and stiff. His camera also makes the fourth wall obvious--his films feel like they were made on sets and not in any kind of 360 degree reality. But he is a very nice guy (i was an extra in Dogma--but was cut) and is kind of the anti-Cameron in that you know you are watching a kevin Smith film within about 5 seconds. On day one in film school everyone goes around and says their favorite filmmaker. The top three are always, in order: 1) Tarantino 2) Smith 3) Tim Burton. Always.

 

Basically i think Smith has a lot of natural talent but not much of an eye. I totally get the appeal, but I really don't share in it. But anyone who gets people really into film is okay with me. Smith is a gateway--he is the pot of directors.

[Astrojanitor]

Give me a band like the Gaslight Anthem over anyone you hear on a top 100 hits station.

 

Check out Lucero, especially their new one 1372 Overton Park. A little rootsy-ier than Gaslight, but with the same energy, vibe and Springsteen fetish.

[billsfan89]

Kevin Smith is a guy who writes brilliantly. Quotable films, they move at a steady pace, exposition is treated seamlessly...all good things. But the guy can't direct to save his life. His films look terrible and he is not good with actors and all. His actors always come off as awkward and stiff. His camera also makes the fourth wall obvious--his films feel like they were made on sets and not in any kind of 360 degree reality. But he is a very nice guy (i was an extra in Dogma--but was cut) and is kind of the anti-Cameron in that you know you are watching a kevin Smith film within about 5 seconds. On day one in film school everyone goes around and says their favorite filmmaker. The top three are always, in order: 1) Tarantino 2) Smith 3) Tim Burton. Always.

 

Basically i think Smith has a lot of natural talent but not much of an eye. I totally get the appeal, but I really don't share in it. But anyone who gets people really into film is okay with me. Smith is a gateway--he is the pot of directors.

 

Yeah from a technical perspective Smith isn't a good director (Although he is getting better with age and I can't wait for his hockey movie) but what I love about Smith is his dialog sounds very natural and believable. I love Smith's movies despite their flaws and I think that his style is that he has no style which is why his movies standout.

 

I am just glad you weren't like some film snobs that think Smith is "everything wrong with cinema"

[billsfan89]

Check out Lucero, especially their new one 1372 Overton Park. A little rootsy-ier than Gaslight, but with the same energy, vibe and Springsteen fetish.

 

Gave them a listen and they are just a little too folksy/country for my tastes but I get the appeal and they do sound like a folk Springsteen.

[Dante]

I don't argue that point at all. I love big-ticket blockbusters. But Titanic was an AWFUL movie.

I have no problem with big-ticket blockbusters if they are done well. Unfortunately for me, being done well includes a story or direction that I can be drawn into. This includes interesting characters and a plot that hasn't been rehashed twenty times with a different skin. Atmospheric direction/sets/special effects immerse you in the story. To me, Bladerunner, Alien are great examples. While Avatar had the special effects thing covered, it was woefully lacking in anything else original or even interesting to the point of being laughable at times. Pour a large amount of heavy handed political propaganda and I'm sorry I contributed to its box office total.

[WWVaBeach]

I would just like to to all of you who have been posting in this thread. The level of knowledge on OTW continues to amaze me.

 

However go over to TSW and you'll see a lot of the opposite.

 

See:

 

Latest Buffalo Bills Discussions:

 

Bills future Plays Tonight

I Am Now 100% Convinced

Does it piss anyone else off....

Two members of front office leaving town today for "business"

Players make the coach, not the other way around

WGR Email

Favorite Bill who you forgot was even a Bill at all?

Leslie Frazer?

Stadium group in L.A. targeting Jags, Bills

Bills attempting to set up interview w/Leslie Frazier

[Astrojanitor]

Yeah from a technical perspective Smith isn't a good director (Although he is getting better with age and I can't wait for his hockey movie) but what I love about Smith is his dialog sounds very natural and believable. I love Smith's movies despite their flaws and I think that his style is that he has no style which is why his movies standout.

 

I am just glad you weren't like some film snobs that think Smith is "everything wrong with cinema"

 

Smith is far from "everything wrong with cinema" but I do think he is using his amateurness as a gimmick/crutch...though his new movie seems like its going to force him to make a "real" film. technically I consider Speilberg to be the "everything wring with cinema" since he is credited with inventing both the summer blockbuster (with "Jaws") and ending the director driven Hollywood new wave of 1967-75.

 

Then again I am obsessed with B pictures of the 40-60s and the grindhouse style movies of the 70s...so being amateurish and barely competent is less a issue than being bland and soul less.

[Adam]

Say what you want about Cameron (and I only have bad things to say about him---outside of Terminator all his films are boring as a dog's ass. Just fancy effects and no soul) he at least makes big screen movies. I know he planned Avatar to be 3-D all along.

 

I was totally underwhelmed by the film. I thought it was a soulless bland slab of nothing. Nice eye candy but immediately forgettable.

Terminator Salvation was a snoozefest

[Astrojanitor]

Terminator Salvation was a snoozefest

 

I know, right? Who would have thought letting a guy named McG direct a movie would backfire?

[billsfan89]

Smith is far from "everything wrong with cinema" but I do think he is using his amateurness as a gimmick/crutch...though his new movie seems like its going to force him to make a "real" film. technically I consider Speilberg to be the "everything wring with cinema" since he is credited with inventing both the summer blockbuster (with "Jaws") and ending the director driven Hollywood new wave of 1967-75.

 

Then again I am obsessed with B pictures of the 40-60s and the grindhouse style movies of the 70s...so being amateurish and barely competent is less a issue than being bland and soul less.

 

I think that Smith was a bit afraid to move out of his comfort zone but in the last 2 years I think Smith is trying to grow up and do something more. Zack and Miri make a porn was the baby step he took. Smith didn't use New Jersey as the setting and he didn't use all of his friends in the movie (he did use some). Zack and Miri was also a film that for the first time a Kevin Smith movie that a lot of my friends didn't know Smith wrote/directed but it was still for the most part what he usually does.

 

Then you look at the movie he just directed A couple of Dicks and its a move that he didn't write a first for Smith. Then you look at the hockey movie and horror movie he plans to do and its bold plans for a guy whose movies are mostly about dick and fart jokes.

[Astrojanitor]

I think that Smith was a bit afraid to move out of his comfort zone but in the last 2 years I think Smith is trying to grow up and do something more. Zack and Miri make a porn was the baby step he took. Smith didn't use New Jersey as the setting and he didn't use all of his friends in the movie (he did use some). Zack and Miri was also a film that for the first time a Kevin Smith movie that a lot of my friends didn't know Smith wrote/directed but it was still for the most part what he usually does.

 

Then you look at the movie he just directed A couple of Dicks and its a move that he didn't write a first for Smith. Then you look at the hockey movie and horror movie he plans to do and its bold plans for a guy whose movies are mostly about dick and fart jokes.

 

KS directing other people's scripts, or even have a better director direct something he wrote, it a huge step for his artistic growth. part of me digs that whole recurring character/town/in jokes thing; but man it is a serious crutch. Sometimes writer/director/producers get stuck in the same kind of circle jerk you find when someone from a band goes solo. Soul Asylum was a pretty good band...early on, but Dave Pirner's solo album is unlistenable--dude needs 3 other guys screaming no at his stupid stupid ideas. Smith movies are like that; he's a guy that could really use the compromise that comes with collaboration.

 

But then I'm still bitter he cut me out of Dogma.

[billsfan89]

KS directing other people's scripts, or even have a better director direct something he wrote, it a huge step for his artistic growth. part of me digs that whole recurring character/town/in jokes thing; but man it is a serious crutch. Sometimes writer/director/producers get stuck in the same kind of circle jerk you find when someone from a band goes solo. Soul Asylum was a pretty good band...early on, but Dave Pirner's solo album is unlistenable--dude needs 3 other guys screaming no at his stupid stupid ideas. Smith movies are like that; he's a guy that could really use the compromise that comes with collaboration.

 

But then I'm still bitter he cut me out of Dogma.

 

I think that in the time after Jay and Silent Bob Strike back to Zack and Miri make a porno Smith got stuck in a funk. He dipped his toe into doing something different with Jersey Girl and he failed (Still don't hate Jersey Girl as much as most Smith fans I even fancy it a guilty pleasure movie). Then he went full on back to the mold he created with Clerks 2 (Which I loved but it still wasn't much of a stretch for him BUT I felt that some closure was needed for Smiths fans).

 

I think Jersey Girl is what scared Smith about doing something different. He tried and failed then he went back to the well because it was what he knew. Then after Clerks 2 Smith went on to do Zack and Miri which while something somewhat different was a very conservative change for him. Now he just directed a movie he didn't write so hopefully it is a success and he feels like his fans will be with him as he gets more artistically driven.

 

I think Smith is balancing the need to cater to his loyal audience and what he knows makes him somewhat successful and the need to go out and expand his horizons as a filmmaker. As someone who hopes to get into cinema writing I hope one day to have that issue

 

And I agree I hope Smith one day feels secure enough to have someone else direct a movie he wrote. As his great writing sometimes gets bogged down by his limitations as a director.

[Adam]

I know, right? Who would have thought letting a guy named McG direct a movie would backfire?

I don't think anyone could have saved that movie- the plot was terrible

[CosmicBills]

But here's the thing: There's an art to writing popular things ...

Something that always got me into trouble in film school.

 

Because, you're right. Without a doubt. And as someone who enjoys popcorn flicks and writes them himself ... I take my share of ****

[CosmicBills]

I know, right? Who would have thought letting a guy named McG direct a movie would backfire?

... I can't believe I'm about to (semi) defend McG ...

 

He's a lousy director. But man, he would be an amazing cinematographer. All of his movies are GORGEOUS -- or were till T4.

[Astrojanitor]

... I can't believe I'm about to (semi) defend McG ...

 

He's a lousy director. But man, he would be an amazing cinematographer. All of his movies are GORGEOUS -- or were till T4.

 

weirdly enough same as Michael Bay. Lots of shimmery surfaces, camera picks up all these beautiful textures...beautiful women turning around in slow motion.

 

At the very least they make movies worth looking at on the big screen.

[John Adams]

Its one thing if you make something and put it out and it becomes popular because its so good (Wither its a band, a movie, or anything else) its another thing to make something to be popular.

 

Something gets lost when you make something just to appeal to as many people as possible. Its becomes a business rather then a art.

 

I disagree. Something also gets lost when someone does their art without regard to their audience (see, eg, performance art, Yoko Ono, etc). You shouldn't sell short that there's an art to appealing to many people. The reason Speilberg's movies work is that he portrays families, their little moments, and the things that join people--in a way that many people can relate to. If everyone could do that, we'd be buried in movies like ET. But not everyone can do what he does.

 

BTW, that's not to put down the original acts--some of them are great. But let's be honest: most people who do art for themselves suck rooster. And they justify their crappy art by saying that they don't sell out.

[billsfan89]

weirdly enough same as Michael Bay. Lots of shimmery surfaces, camera picks up all these beautiful textures...beautiful women turning around in slow motion.

 

At the very least they make movies worth looking at on the big screen.

 

Their movies are very pretty to look at but they are just window dressing and while I enjoy looking at Megan Fox in slow mo and seeing explosions but I sure wouldn't like to pay 12 dollars to see it when its going to be on free TV in 3 years and I can Netflix it in 4-6 months.

 

In the end Bay and to a lesser extent McG know how to make a movie look cool BUT like George Lucas said "Its all about story, it doesn't matter how much action and special effects you have if you don't have a good story no one is going to care what happens" ironically Lucas wouldn't follow his own advice in his Star Wars Prequels.

[billsfan89]

I disagree. Something also gets lost when someone does their art without regard to their audience (see, eg, performance art, Yoko Ono, etc). You shouldn't sell short that there's an art to appealing to many people. The reason Speilberg's movies work is that he portrays families, their little moments, and the things that join people--in a way that many people can relate to. If everyone could do that, we'd be buried in movies like ET. But not everyone can do what he does.

 

BTW, that's not to put down the original acts--some of them are great. But let's be honest: most people who do art for themselves suck rooster. And they justify their crappy art by saying that they don't sell out.

 

I am not saying just make something just for yourself. BUT make something good just make it the highest quality possible don't worry about how to sell toys, don't worry about trying to hire the right actor to promote your movie, don't worry about trying to get the right rating so teenagers can see it, and don't worry about trying to appeal to the right demographics either.

 

Make something that is just of high quality, don't worry about selling tickets just worry about making a movie that is so good that many people will want to go see it purely based on how good it is. I just feel that appealing to as many people as possible is not an art but a business practice. ET appealed to a lot of people because it was an excellent movie not because Speilberg tried to make a popular movie.