James Cameron: Trendsetter?

Article by #TalkNerdyToMeLover contributer Torsten Simonis

Almost 4 weeks ago 'Avatar' hit cinemas worldwide. During that time it broke some records and is well on the way to overplay the 'Titanic' box-office takings.

So it's time to look back. Was it worth all the buzz it generated and did it really change the art of making movies?
To cut a long story short: I don't think so. No doubt 'Avatar' was a good movie, matter of fact it was an awesome movie and almost everybody that saw it was thrilled by it. But if you ask yourself what was the best part about it, you have to admit that it's the 3D effects. With the help of those, James Cameron accomplishes it to drag you into a complete new world that looks exotic but at the same time realistic. This was my first 3D movie and I didn't expect it to work this well. It definitely raised the bar of special effects and CG characters.

But it doesn't change the fact that the heart of a movie is still it's story. And there's the rub. The story isn't really revolutionary. It's a combination of "Dances with wolves", "The last samurai" and "Pocahontas" just transferred onto an new planet. Just take a look at the main characters, either good or bad. They don't evolve during the plot. The bad guys stay bad and the good guys stay good. There's no turns and twists, no betrayal, no deus ex machine and even the ending isn't very surprising.
If you leave the 3D effects out you would notice that, but you are too blinded by the looks and effects of the movie. But I'm sure that on the long run people will notice that, because I already know how the story continues. Other directors will try copying this movie hoping they can make big revenue. But people will get tired of it and turn away from it. Just take a look at some trends in the past. After 'The Matrix' every movie had some bullet time sequences in it no matter if it made sense or not and after 'Lord of the rings' everybody thought that you just have to put some knights and hugh battle scenes in a movie and you'll have a success. But that's not the way it works, a movie needs heart and soul to be successful. (I know that there are lot's of films without that which are very successful, but hey, I'm an idealist!)

Another big topic that was discussed in the course of the movie was the fact that 60% of the movie was strictly digital so no real actors were showed during that time. Some people already claimed that in the future you don't need actors anymore because you can easily replace them by CG characters. But I think that this is also a false conclusion. James Cameron did use actors. I even read an interview with him in which he said that he couldn't shoot the movie without real actors. He just used them in a different way. Instead of putting them in mask and makeup for a few hours and let them act totally dressed up, he let them act like they are and used motion capture to get their body and face movements. Afterwards he transferred them to the digital characters. The emotions you see in the faces of the Avatars were only possible due to the achievements of the actors. This was quite impressive if you look at Sigourney Weavers Avatar. You could recognize her even if you don't know that this is her.

I don't think we have to worry about the end of actors, stuntman and movies shot in the real world. I'm pretty sure that in the near future a lot of movies will show up that try to jump on the bandwagon. But this hype will also calm down. But on the other hand I think that 3D will stay and it will find it's way into the homes of people. You can see this right now if you look at some of the new displays that were presented on the CES.

More info about 3D on the CES

Previous
Previous

#CES, CES, CES!

Next
Next

Walking, Talking, Punch line