Balls and Walnuts
more than you ever wanted to know
Why I won’t be seeing Avatar.
Roughly 12 years ago, when director James Cameron first began thinking about the movie Avatar, interested Dipteran scientists downloaded my persona into a six-legged, two-winged biological construct.
I only look like a domestic fly. I'm actually 10 mg of pure, sophisticated intelligence.
My task: to observe and record what transpired at Cameron’s high concept brainstorming session.
My purpose: to exploit rich new sources of bullshit for my Dipteran colleagues.
What follows is a transcript of one of Cameron’s earliest meetings.
Cameron: It’s science fiction. There are good guys and bad guys. The good guys are nature-lovin’ back woodsy types. Think Ewoks. With tits.
Toady 1: And the bad guys, sir?
Cameron: Easy — the most evil thing in all Western Civilization, the CORPORATION, backed by some mercenary tough guys.
Toady 2: Great! It worked for us in Aliens 2. Everyone loves to hate a faceless corporation.
Toady 1: I’m not sure about the Ewoks, sir. First, they’ve been done. Second, you have to admit that buxom teddy bears is a disturbing image.
Cameron: Elves, then. And we’ll make ’em blue. Has anyone done blue aliens yet? How original is that?
Toady 1: Um. Smurfs, sir.
But Papa Smurf says I'm too nubile to have a boyfriend!
Cameron: And TALL, too! No one will think Smurfs. Now all we need is a plot.
Toady 2 (shuffling through his papers): Hmm. Plot #3 ought to do.
Cameron: Three it is. No one pays attention to plot anyway. All they care about is how much money we pile into the special effects. So . . . plot #3 . . . evil super-wealthy super-powerful corporation wants to exploit good guys for the usual rare Unobtainium* crap, sympathetic human stands up for the good guys, there’s a love story, the sympathetic human leads them on an against-all-odds battle that ends — well, you know how it ends, everyone leaves the theater with a smile on his face.
Toady 2: Sigourney’s available.
Cameron: Use her. But not as the protag. Need some young heartthrob — there’s gotta be a love story, remember?
Toady 1: Sounds complete. All we need is a name for the alien planet . . .
Cameron: You own a copy of Edith Hamilton’s Mythology, don’t you? Pick something at random. Sysiphus, Hephaestus, Pandora, I don’t give a crap.
Toady 2: How about the Unobtainium, sir? What do we call that?
Cameron: What are you talking about? We call it Unobtainium. That’s what I said, so that’s what we’ll call it.
Toady 2: But sir, “Unobtainium” is a place-holder. It would be like calling your love interest “Love Interest.”
Cameron: Unobtainium sounds scientific, doesn’t it? You have a problem with verisimilitude, you numskull? GODDAMMIT I WANT UNOBTAINIUM!
Toady 1 (whispering to #2): It’s okay. Anyone calls us on it and we’ll say it’s a writer’s in-joke.
Toady 2: This is crap.
And that did it. All that talk of crap made my two-winged, six-legged avatar ravenous for the real thing. I flew away and left Cameron and his toadies to their devices.
For a real review, see Beth Accomando’s lusciously snarky article for PBS. Snip:
“Avatar†clocks in at 162 minutes and it feels even longer because you know exactly where the story is going so there’s no tension or suspense. Yet Cameron insists on dragging predictable events out. It’s like going to your friend’s house down the street but having someone drive you out of state first.
I’m saving my money.
D.
*AKA Upsidaisium.
Dammit. WordPress ate my comment.
Good one, Doug. I will be seeing it, partly because I’m curious and partly because I’m old enough to have seen pretty much all of Cameron’s films as they came out (either in the theater or shortly after on video) — minus Piranha 2, but really, who saw that one and cares to remember it? — and after each one I thought to myself, “Man, this is going to change the way they make movies.” And some of them actually did. So I want to see if he does the same here. (NB: none of them changed the way they *write* movies, but just like nobody actually reads Playboy for the articles, you don’t go to a Jim Cameron movie for the story either.) And when I do see it, and groan as I will at the ridiculous plot points and silly names for made-up minerals, I’ll think of you.
Okay, I’m trying again… I figure 24 hours have passed, so maybe WP will let me through this time 🙂
The reviewer is wrong about a number of things. First off, the future isn’t ‘unspecified,’ it’s 2157 – there’s a fairly prominent timestamp displayed on-screen whenever Jake makes a video log entry. Second, the evil is pure corporate; they aren’t soldiers, they’re mercenaries. If anything, Cameron idealizes those who stay true to some kind of archetypal warrior spirit. Grace doesn’t despair because her science is used for evil – she despairs because she’s betrayed by Jake. The technology is incidental; it enables Jake’s betrayal, but in and of itself is quite morally neutral. And the Ewoks crack is unkind: unlike the Ewoks, the Na’vi get slaughtered. Repeatedly. And graphically. These are arguably minor quibbles, but they do suggest a certain lack of attention on the reviewer’s part.
We didn’t see the 3D version, so I can’t comment on that. We saw it at Cinerama on a 30-foot screen and the visuals were uniformly impressive, to the point that I started to feel height vertigo during some scenes. We didn’t find that the story dragged at all; in fact, we were surprised that it didn’t feel as long as it was.
Was it a great movie? No, probably not (the technology is a game-changer, though). But I definitely enjoyed it enough to consider springing for the 3D version before it leaves the theaters.
Hey! It worked! Do you have WP set to reject any comment with even one link? Because that’s really the only difference between today’s comment and the ones I tried to leave yesterday – yesterday, I linked to the Cinerama website.
I don’t want to see it because it looks silly. But you gave me some cerebral excuses to use if anyone tries to strongarm me. Not likely, but you never know.
The more I heard about it, the less and less interesting it seemed.
I think this movie could be far more interesting. 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWSnSyUgq_Q
Okay, ps, I’ll consider it . . . but only if I can rope my son into going with me. But isn’t my central objection (that the plot is uninspired) valid?
As for the links, I think dcr’s comment proves that one link is okay.
Lyvvie, glad to be of service.
Dan, on my way to check it out.
. . . I’m back. That is cute. Toward the end, I half expected him to say, “This is SPARTA!”
Hm… yes and no. The writing isn’t inspired, but it is servicable (to quote John Scalzi – his take on it isn’t too different from mine.). The visuals, however, are quite inspired – and we are talking about a visual medium here. If we were discussing a novel – even a trope-ridden genre novel – your point would be valid. With a genre film though… not as much.