Avatar – Movie Game Changer Or Harbinger of Doom? : In The Spotlight

Now that the dust has finally settled somewhat on the monster that is Avatar (with those who are still yet to see it chastegated from common social functioning, much like those who suffered from leprosy during biblical times) we here at WATCH OUT FOR feel that enough time has passed for open discourse regarding the greater meaning of a film like Avatar to take place without fear of criticism from the the impassioned film-nerd fraternity.

As such, WATCH OUT FOR reader James Egan has been given an open forum to let his mind run free – as he takes a deeper look at James Cameron’s Avatar, and what it means for the future of cinema.

It is now approximately 46 days and two billion dollars since James Cameron’s goliath Avatar opened across the world, and after speaking with others, I almost feel like I’ve experienced an entirely different movie.

I continually hear phrases like “Mind blowing!” or “Damn, I literally soiled my pants as well as the pants of the person next to me it was that good!” (well, this one is a little less frequent) and  of course that popular term “Game Changer”.

Now don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate it. Not by a long shot. If I was to use a metaphor to describe it, I would say it’s the visual equivalent to the opposite of a swift punch to the head. The CGI was flawless, the best I’ve ever seen. There were no dead eyed journeys into the uncanny valley, and I never found myself saying to the person next to me “Man, this terrible CGI sure wants to make me kill you and everyone else in this cinema.”

I find that bad CGI can pull me right out of a movie and back into the reality in which I’m forced to exist (I’m looking at you Wolverines claws in X-Men Origins : Wolverine, and you too, Nicholas Cage’s hair in… well… everything).

Avatar : What will it mean for the future of blockbuster cinema?

As for the 3D aspect I reluctantly paid extra to see, it too was a pleasant surprise. Every 3D feature film I’ve ever seen uses the same cheap tricks so that you never forget for a second that what you’re seeing is 3D-afied.

It’s usually a constant barrage of birds, bats, yo-yo’s, and frisbees flying at your face for reasons beyond comprehension. Quite frankly, I thought 3D films had gone the way of Cherry Coke…

One thing I find particularly compelling is the fact that 3D film is not even 3D. Let’s try an experiment, raise your hand in front of your face right now. Now move it back and forth. Right, done that? THAT’S 3D! Not this quasi 3D crap they’ve been trying to pawn on us for years.

However, I truly felt that the 3D aspect of Avatar did aid the film. Do you want to know why? Simple. It wasn’t slapping you in the face the entire time with its 3D-ness. It was it’s subtlety that I appreciated. That, and the fact that all it did was highlight how good the film looked in the first place by adding a slight three dimensional edge.

When I see something in real life that I find aesthetically pleasing, it’s not the fact that it keeps rushing back and forth at me I find appealing, it’s the fact that it looks, well…nice. And James Cameron seemed to get that. So hats off.

Yet, as I mentioned at the beginning of this rant, I didn’t seem to love the film as much as everyone else, or even indeed as much as I hoped. It wasn’t the Phantom Menace level of disappointment I experienced in ’99 (I’ve now desensitised myself to the point where my heart can never be THAT broken again). But it did leave me with a serious feeling of “meh” and left an unpleasant feeling where I thought what I just saw could add a level of tedium to cinema that it just doesn’t need.

What do I mean? Well then, you greedy and inquisitive urchin, allow me to explain!

I’m sure a lot of you have heard the comparisons of the story  being a cross between Fern Gully and Dances with Wolves, or as I like to call it “Kevin Costner Dances With Not Being Able To Edit Down A Film”, I hate to retread old ground here but all of the ideas in Avatar felt completely recycled. Other than the visuals, it brought nothing new to the table – and bear in mind – I am a HUGE fan of all James Cameron’s films, especially Aliens and first two Terminator films.

Aliens, especially, was clever in the sense it took the ideas from the first film and completely flipped them on their head, taking the franchise in an exciting, new direction – an exciting, new direction that ceased the moment Alien 3 opened in cinemas to the universal voice of “We hate this so much.”

All I felt Avatar did was take existing ideas, repackage them in a big shiny box with a pretty blue bow (I use the colour blue because of the colours of the creatures in the film, see what I did there? – very clever. Mum will be proud) and re-gifted them to the general public, who now seem determined to make it the highest grossing film of all time.

The problem I have with that is that the good aspects of the film, that being the CGI and subtle 3D, aren’t actually James Cameron’s doing. Yes the whole concept thing is his idea, but he didn’t develop the technology himself, he simply saw what was being done before and told his crew to do it better. And then when they did it better he said, do it better again, in 3D. And boom, Avatar.

But the reason I think Avatar is not the “Game Changer” it claims to be, is that it’s a rather a huge step back and it has nothing to do with it’s story flaws. Film companies will see that Avatar has grossed ridiculous money and will relate that directly to its use of 3D technology – which I feel is a horrible, horrible conclusion to reach.

Before Avatar it was pretty much only kids movies that were being released in 3D, but from now on this bracket is likely to widen severely. The main issue I struggle with here is that it won’t be done anywhere near as well as Avatar. The subtlety is going to be completely stripped away to the point where it’s going to be audience members having CGI dinosaurs swapping at their faces for two and a half hours.

So you could use the term “Game Changer” to describe Avatar, if, by “Game Changer” you also mean terrible step backwards in cinema.