James Cameron Compares Plans For Avatar Universe To Star Trek Franchise August 26, 2010
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Trek Franchise , trackback
James Cameron’s 2009 sci-fi movie Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time, and on Friday a special edition of Avatar will be back in theaters to scoop up some more cash. But Cameron has even higher aspirations, saying that he hopes to build a franchise fan following akin to Star Wars…and Star Trek.
James Cameron wants his own Trekkies (Avataries? – Pandorians?)
On Friday select theaters will open Avatar: Special Edition, an extended version of the film with nine minutes of additional footage, which should add a few bucks to the $2.4 Billion total it already has. However, Cameron and his team are said to be looking at Avatar as much more than just a popular movie, but more like the beginning of a franchise.
Cameron has said he plans to develop two additional feature films set in the Avatar universe, but those will not come for a few years. In the short term Cameron is now finishing a companion novel that will provide more backstory for the characters in Avatar. The writer/director sees the book as just the beginning of an extended universe, but thinks it will be even better than another familiar franchise’s, telling the LA Times.
[The novel] will also be the bible for any future publication, a look-up guide for future writers who can come in and work within the world…. Think about all the ‘Star Trek’ novels and how they contradicted each other for a few years and it made it tricky to be a Trekkie for a while.
Beyond the novel, Cameron makes it clear that he is hoping to build a fan following for Avatar like George Lucas did for Star Wars and Gene Roddenberry did for Star Trek, telling the LA Times:
You’ve got to compete head on with these other epic works of fantasy and fiction, the Tolkiens and the ‘Star Wars’ and the ‘Star Treks. People want a persistent alternate reality to invest themselves in and they want the detail that makes it rich and worth their time. They want to live somewhere else. Like Pandora.
Cameron’s comparisons Star Trek are nothing new. Back when Avatar was release he spoke about the Na’vi language developed for the film and once again contrasted his work with Star Trek, telling EW the goal for him and linguist Paul Froemer was to "out-Klingon Klingon".
Director James Cameron with some Avatar fans
So what do you think? Can James Cameron’s Avatar eventually grow into a multi-media extended universe like Star Wars and Star Trek, inspiring a devoting following, conventions, and the rest? Or will it just end up being a popular series of films like say the Matrix? Only time will tell.
Avatar: Special Edition opens Friday August 27th. More info at the official site. Here is the trailer.
Loading ...
Comments»
Why would he want a bunch of whiny old guys dogging his every move? You’ll be sorry, James. ;-)
In his dreams………….
This is the guy who wanted to turn Titanic into a weekly series. Unfortunately every finale script kept coming up with the same ending.
Yawn.
…and Oasis is bigger than the Beatles.
stay away from star trek. You’ve already ruined way too many movies by insisting on making everything 3D. I just hope the star trek crew are smart enough not to make it 3D and keep you off the set.
Yeah, not so much. I call Avatar the ‘Invisible Blockbuster’ because, despite the ticket returns, I’ve met only one person who saw it more than once or was anywhere near ‘fanatical’ about it. Most reactions I’ve come across have been ‘hey, that looked neat.’
Best of luck, Mr. Cameron. I don’t think you’ve hit quite the same vein as our venerable Star franchises.
Well. He has a chance. It did make Billions. But. the Lord of the Rings made a lot of money and so did the Matrix. It takes a very Special Show to make it. Outside of Star Trek and Star wars theres not a lot of shows that made it. the X Files and Babylon 5 did make it somewhat. But those shows have not done anything in a while like Star Wars and Star Trek have. for a Show to make it like Trek and Wars they have to continue to produce shows and not just a couple of Movies no matter how much money they make at the box office.
James Cameron you’re an egotistical jerk
To me, Avatar would fit well into the pre-existing Alien/Predator universe.
He would have to change the name “Avatar” is too specific to that situation, in which once guy is using an alien avatar.
A guy in a spaceship in the same universe couldn´t bear to have a name series based on a gadget, it would be like “MSN” or “Twitter”.
Maybe it could be “Adventures of spaceship SULACO”, so they could visit other planets on the Cameronverse. Like “LV-426″ or the future Earth taken by Terminators, or a water planet with the aliens from “The Abyss”.
“When Cameron was in Egypt land, let my Cameron go”.
To be honest its just a matter of time till he grows bored of it and eventually returns back to making documentaries about the sea.
Avatar isn’t even a franchise. It’s a single movie….
TOTAL HOURS:
—————————————–
AVATAR: 3 hours in one movie
STAR TREK: 600+ hours spread over 5 series, 11 movies. It also has 600+ books.
Uhmmmm!!!
Today is CP’s birthday, remember guys!!!!…… Happy Niver Chris!!!!
Nope. Not likely.
Well, that’s laughable. I think Cameron might have been snorting some of those hundred dollar bills he’s got lying around :P
Even if Avatar was a good story (and it wasn’t), it’s not sustainable in a dynamic, franchise-expanding universe way. No one is going to watch lots of Na’vi yammering on screen about fighting X and Y as a spinoff series.
Avatar was a great Movie and im sure he will make a couple of more. But for it to reach then Status of Wars and Trek needs to have a series and lots of Books. If he can do that then he would have a chance.
Slapping blue paint on Dances With Wolves is no way to make a franchise. I get that it’s easy, slap blue paint on as many meaningful Oscar winners as possible and then put “Avatar [x]: [subtitle]” on the poster, and with the $30trillion they charge to see a 3D movie, it will make money. But I just don’t see a devoted following for this franchise long-term.
At the end of the movie I thought, okay, now I hope I never see these characters or locations again because they never once connected with me beyond the “I’ve seen this movie with less special effects before.”
Thought it already wuz’ a series/franchise set up long agos… all them azure aliens livin’ in mushrooms bein’ hunted by some ugly monk and his cat…
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…
Cameron: The Search for Avatards
Happy Birthday Chris Pine I hope he has a great day love you so much
The “Matrix” films make an apt and cautionary analogy — one good movie that captured imaginations, two more than made most people shrug.
The movie wasn’t deep enough for a franchise to be anything more than movies with neat special effects.
All those other films, people LOVE. It’s from their heart that they watch and follow them.
I don’t feel like Avatar is loved by that many people.
Good movie, and marketing genius of course. I just can’t see it going further than neat movies to watch a couple of times.
I’ve seen Star Wars probably almost 200 times so far. It’s like a religion to me. (I’ve lost track on Wrath of Khan)
Avatar will get only about 10 total in my life.
Of course, with all that money, he can just force us to love the franchise.
From now on, all restaurants are Navi Burger!
(oh, and I also think/hope all the other good, quality film makers will buck the 3D trend)
Avatar was fun, but too preachy. If you thought the children cartoon series “Captain Planet” was heavy handed, imagine a series of this enviroactivist diatribe… A sequel would be worth a look, but really, I think his ambitions for cultural impact may be a bit unhinged.
Speaking of Cameron and unhinged….
James Cameron, Mega-Climate Creationist, Chickens Out On Debate
http://tinyurl.com/2uo3wsf
The only thing remotely comparable with the Star Trek phenomenon is the James Bond phenomenon. Nothing else has the history, cultural significance, success and longevity of Star Trek. (Not even Star Wars: there are only six films, only three of which are worth watching and only two of which are good, and a cartoon series. Whereas, Star Trek has had a pretty constant presence from the sixties with 11 films (so far), 6 TV shows, and countless books, etc., having being made since then.)
Avatar looked good but was distinctly average in all other respects: this is no franchise. Besides, it takes him so long to make a film. There is much better sci-fi than this; hopefully, J.J. & co. are about to make some more of it…
Avatar was all effects and no heart. The characters were entirely one dimensional and the story cliched. Not exactly a strong foundation on which to build a franchise, mega-box office notwithstanding.
Oh please… the Smurfs already have the blue franchise. And they’ve better dialogue to boot!
Avatar has as good a chance (of becoming a franchise) as ST09… =P
The movie was pretty. That’s about all that was “fantastic” about it. The actors were fairly good, but IMO, were outshone by the effects and were pulled down by the far too predictable story. I don’t think I’ll be seeing the special edition until the Blu Ray release. No sense wasting 10 bucks at the theater for 9 minutes of extra footage.
It won’t happen. People aren’t into overgrown Smurfs. It was a nice gimmick when it came out but it doesn’t have legs.
I will say I was one of those who enjoyed watching Avatar.
The problem was, as soon as the house lights went up and I actually took a few seconds to THINK about what I’d been watching, Ferngully 2.0, that I realized what I had experienced was not a motion picture, but an amusement park ride.
So while I’m glad I saw Avatar, I have no real desire to go back into that universe. I certainly wouldn’t read a novel about Pandora.
BTW- if you STILL haven’t seen Mr. Plinkett’s review of Avatar, use the link below. It will kill any desire you have for sequels or an avatar-based universe.
http://redlettermedia.com/avatar.html
I think a franchise could happen, but Cameron would need a lot more output than three movies and a few books. An affordable animated tv series might do the trick.
Some people have a problem that Avatar has a message. Well, many Star Trek episodes did as well, and that’s why they are so memorable and involving. To me, a movie without a message is eventually forgettable, even if it dazzles with effects.
Further, I found Avatar quite moving regarding the ideas about difficulties in being “the other” and misunderstanding between cultures, and yes, in its approach toward the shared loss of our environmental heritage if we are not good caretakers. I don’t know why some don’t feel that, but we are all different. Perhaps there are biases and “shields up” feelings in some viewers regarding Cameron, not allowing themselves to immerse fully in the experience.
Avatar was the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen on a movie screen visually. I don’t understand how anyone that saw the film could walk away not being awestruck by the amount of detail that was shown. And as a whole I enjoyed the movie.
I think Avatar certainly could have a chance to become a major franchise that spawns movies, shows, books, games, etc… Will it? Who knows. At one time Trek was just a canceled TV series – creating a cultural phenomenon takes a bit of magic.
Actually, I think he’s got the possibility of doing that.
It’s certainly a world that can be expanded to tell all kinds of stories, especially with the strained relations beteen the humans and the Na’vi tribe, the diplomatic minefields, the other clans on Pandora, the scientific and cultural details that can be revealed, new characters can come and go, the backstory of what’s happening on Earth, or the corporation behind the Unobtanium mining, more about the technology humans are utilizing, etc.
Avatar provides an expandable, detailed, and potentially very varied backdrop for stories, characters and ideas.
The seeds are there for a long running franchise ala Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Star Trek.
Haven’t seen it. Probably won’t. It just doesn’t seem that interesting to me.
“. . . made it tricky to be a Trekkie for a while.”
Sounds like a line from a country tune, doesn’t it?
All them novels, all them years
All them authors, all them tears
First Spock Must Die, then Spock’s the Messiah
I was feelin’ like my universe was under fire.
Lookin’ back, I can see, ‘n I can say it with a smile:
All them books made it tricky for a Trekkie for a while.
Honestly, not that good a movie in my opinion. I wanted it to change my life like all the hype promised, but it just didn’t. Classic story of tech killing nature but that’s not enough to build a franchise on.
The expanded version of Avatar? Wasn’t the first go round something like 2 1/2 days long to begin with? How much CGI “save the earth” preaching can you pack into a day without your head exploding, anyway….
There is a reason TOS is the benchmark of the series – the sequel series strayed from “wagon train to the stars”, and while that “holier then thou” preaching works on the small screen for a bit, there is no way you can build a movie franchise around it. Star Wars, Star Trek, and for that matter 007 gives people a little escape for some action and adventure. Somehow, I just don’t see a franchise growing around “Captain Planet and his adventures on Pandora”.
Avatar was an entertaining movie but it got slated as a Preachy Liberal Eco movie by the Faux News channel and the reputation stuck to it like Shit to a blanket.
Now a lot of people who previously enjoyed the movie have had their thoughts reprogrammed by teh Palinite Teabagger Cult to dislike it.
Simple as…….
Cameron states, “Think about all the ‘Star Trek’ novels and how they contradicted each other for a few years and it made it tricky to be a Trekkie for a while.” Star Trek novels were not canon. (Wiki link below.) So one could enjoy a novel but ignore it as conflicting with the series or films.
However the link below notes exceptions such as Jeri Taylor’s novels, that provided background on ST: Voyager. This brings us to the excellent graphic novel “Star Trek: Countdown.” I’ll start the movement now to make that canon. You get a lot of background information that explains Star Trek ‘09 such as a fleshing out of Nero’s motivations,and the Narada has been enhanced with Borg technology. Regardless, fellow Trekkers, check out the graphic novel with a story by Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci, Trek ‘09 and ‘12 writers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(Star_Trek)#Fiction_novels
The big differences between “Avatar” and “Star Trek”
- “Star Trek” at its best was (and is) driven by interesting characters. “Avatar” was driven by a blank lead character the audience could project themselves into and a couple of broad-stroke stereotypes. (Not that I’m against broad-stroke stereotypes in fun-and-dumb action movies.)
- “Star Trek” proposed an interesting, vital universe you wanted to know more about. “Avatar” propose a future where the earth is dying and the only people having fun are humorless blue tree elves.
Where would you rather spend more time?
No he didn’t! In before the all the Trek fans get threatened! :p
They seriously butchered that song in the trailer. . . :( “Avatar” worked because it was spectacle. . . the next movies will have to have much more going for them to succeed. We’ll see how that goes. . .
~FS
While I have no problem wearing my Star Trek uniforms and going to ST CONs…. I refuse to go to an Avatar CON if I have paint myself blue!!!
I love Andorians (April bieng my favorite) don’t get me wrong, as I think that is the reason a person should go around in blue face paint.
As far as a franchise….that reamins to be seen. I really doubt there will come a time when I am in Las Vegas palying an Avatar slot machine as I do with that highly addictive Star Trek slot machine… the most fun I have loosing money. SHIELDS!!!!
I love it how nearly everyone compares avatar to another film: “Then i realized i was watching ‘Dances with Wolves’, ‘Ferngully’, ‘Pocahontas’ etc, etc.
Nothing is completely original with films now. Nothing really can be since film and cinema has been going as long as it has. You’ve got to realise that yes the messages will seem similar and stories are the same. Some important messages were conveyed in Star Trek yet we still have similar problems in the real world as there were 50 years ago.
Avatar really was blatent in the whole eco-warrior image but it wasn’t made to educate us. It was made to educate a younger generation who are not aware of this. It told a story and sent a message. Science fiction is about inspiring people for the future, granted Avatar has a message we have all heard before, especially in Star Trek. But i find it amazing people on here are so ignorant that they think once is enough.
If anything the fact that Avatar was seen by SO many people with such a strong message should be appreciated by Star Trek fans not torn to shreds. If they is what Trek fans are like then maybe it’s time another franchise takes over.
Trekkies are unique. You can’t just go get some.
@ Calb (post #45)
Let me be clear. I’m not picking on Avatar for being somehwat like Ferngully and Dancing With Wolves.
I’m picking on Avatar for being a one-dimensional, poorly-written rehash of those films.
I realize that themes and even basic plot concepts and story progressions come in a finite number of permutations and that you will get similarities especially in genre films.
But Avatar is just a lazy freakin’ script.
Amazing visuals. Fun ride. Best special effects I’ve ever seen. And so long as you don’t bother to think, Avatar is fun.
But God forbid any of your brain matter other than your optic nerves come to the party with you- because the story plays out like it was written by a 12 year old. I’ve seen long-distance telephone commercials from the 80s which do a better job of character development and plot complexity.
#45–word. Though you left out the irony of those who thought Trek ‘09 was just the most awesome thing ever savaging Avatar for its lack of originality. But then, some jokes just write themselves.
Star Trek did not open with a $300 million dollar movie; it began as a modestly budgeted TV series (complete with foam rocks and cheesy spaceships) and built it’s way up VERY slowly. It was a 40 year overnight success! ; )
Much of that was due to the emphasis on character over spectacle (it’s lower budgets actually proved a mixed blessing, IMO). And part of the reason the show has endured in one form or another, is that we grew accustomed to this family of characters and felt comfortable exploring this fictional universe with them (even when new family members came aboard).
Avatar is a beautiful, wondrous, visual experience, and I loved it on those terms; but to be honest, I just don’t see it as a franchise. The spectacle will get to be old hat in time (ala Matrix). Star Wars is another example of that problem; by it’s third movie (in 1983) it began to show signs of fatigue (re-use of familiar planetary vistas, another Death Star, etc) and by the prequel era, it has become a victim of it’s own good fortune. The “lived in universe” of the originals had a distinctive sheen to it now, and looked so polished and inorganic with layers of CGI slickness that much of the visual appeal of the earlier films was gone.
George Lucas had become his own Emperor!
I hope James Cameron invests his energies in other arenas. To Cameron, I’d say please don’t put so many eggs in the Avatar basket; it’s a good-looking basket but it doesn’t hold a lot of eggs, really.
39… Yeah, that’s it. Fox News told me to not like “Avatar”. Nevermind that I said the week it came out that the effects were superb and everything else mediocre at best. Nevermind that the main villain was little more developed than Boris Badenov, that the acting was awful (working against bluescreens usually has that effect), and that the dialogue made the Star Wars prequels look like MacBeth…
#25 – methinks you’ve forgotten Doctor Who…
#45
“Avatar really was blatent in the whole eco-warrior image but it wasn’t made to educate us. It was made to educate a younger generation who are not aware of this.”
So the younger generation is not aware of home video then? I’m pretty sure Dances with Wolves and Ferngully are on DVD now.
“Science fiction is about inspiring people for the future…”
Um, maybe Star Trek is about inspiring people, but science fiction can be whatever the writer/creator wants it to be.
#39
Leave your political diatribes at the Huffington Post. Trekmovie is a class joint. Am I right, Anthony?
This the problem with studios today. Everyone wants their projects to become the next big thing. A lot of blockbuster movies are being made with the idea of “franchising” in mind. Movie studios are now anticipating big things for their movies or shows even before anyone sees them. When Star Trek and Star Wars were created, it was about the entertainment value within a boundary, whether it be an episode a week for seven months or one movie at a time based on how well it was recieved. Hollywood is getting ahead of itself, and James Cameron is assuming a lot if he thinks “Avatar” will become as big as “Star Trek” or “Star Wars”. Those two properties became what they are today due to audiences responding overwhelmingly to the characters and stories of both properties. I don’t get the same feeling with “Avatar”. As great as the movie is, the characters and plot aren’t all that unique. The film’s appeal lies in the visuals. On the other hand, both “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” started becoming super-popular because the characters resonated with audiences in a way few other pop culture products have. When both the original “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” were created, there were no plans to expand beyond the then-current production. While George Lucas had planned sequels to “Star Wars”, he knew it would only happen if the movie was successful. And when he was done with the trilogy, everyone thought it was over until merchandise sales went through the roof and huge numbers of people began reading the novels and attended Star Wars conventions en masse. Only then did he begin to realize the hunger for more Star Wars, which allowed him to produce the prequels.
“Star Trek” was created as a t.v show. It was meant as a t.v show. There was limited merchandise during its original run. The ratings were pretty low. It survived two cancellations after the first and second seasons, only to be “killed” after the third, in spite of fan protests. Hence “The Original Series” was put into syndication in the 70’s where it found a new, much bigger audience. Merchandise began to be produced at a greater level and fan fiction and productions began to spring up at Star Trek conventions. Then “The Motion Picture” was made and while it was recieved with mixed reaction, it cemented Star Trek’s place as a pop culture phenomenon.
What allowed both franchises to grow was the fact that back in the 70’s there was limited means to getting your Star Trek or Star Wars fix. You had to see Star Wars in the cinema, there was no such thing as home video or dvd. If one wanted to watch an episode of Star Trek, they’d have to wait until a certain time for it to air on tv. Again, there were no other options. And so fans had to use their imaginations and creativity to sate their hunger when little in the way of official productions were being made. This allowed for greater appreciation of both properties. Today, with shorter stays in theatres for movies, as well as internet downloading and file sharing, it is much more difficult for a property to become a phenomenon because of the competition for the audience’s attention.
In the seventies, there wasn’t a whole lot of competiion for Star Wars and Star Trek. They only had to “compete” against each other. Their “rivalry ” allowed both to expand for better or worse. Sci-fi and fantasy was a niche genre back then. Today, there is so much flooding the market that what made Star Wars and Star Trek great has been watered down.
Star Trek and Star Wars became what they were only partially because of planning. Mostly it was because both franchises struck the right chords at the right time with the right audiences. I don’t think that can be replicated today. The game has changed so much.
I don’t think James Cameron understands it fully even though he has done a lot of awesome work, including creating the “Terminator” phenomenon. Its just that there is more to the popularity to Star Trek and Star Wars than what we see on the t.v, big screen or read in books. Its more about the soul and spirit of ideas. And that is what seperates Star Trek and Star Wars from “Avatar”. “Avatar’s success was based on the technical; both Star Wars and Star Trek thrive today because of idealogy, spirit and soul, as well as character.
@Vultan, Since when you known a kid to want to see an old film as oppose to a new cinema release? Avatar is more recent, more talked about. A kid or teenager for that matter is far less inclined to go out and get an old film based on a similar concept no matter how much of a classic it may be.
Sometimes I think that after Titanic came out, James Cameron just lost his mind.
Well we’ll just have to wait and see. Everything has to start somewhere I just don’t understand all the anger.
(Or maybe I do)
What kills the movie are the lame sports metaphors forced in to allow dumbsters to understand the movie “Your team” “Their team”, etc. :P
Avatar and Trek were the best movies of last year. Screw the Avatar bashers. and the whiny :”I hate 3D” bashers. Go watch Scott Pilgrim.
I have to chime in and agree with those who feel the reason ‘Avatar’ won’t achieve a Trekkian status is because it lacks the depth needed for an on-going series. Star Trek, at its core, offers a premise of exploration and discovery, while it is hard to envision what more could be said about the world of ‘Avatar.’ As usual, maybe I’m just lacking in imagination, but how many times can the Na’vi fend off the humans before we’re all yawning with boredom? And if that is not to be the core of an ‘Avatar’ series, then what’s left — stories about the Na’vi’s society, religious beliefs, family units? Hardly enough adventure to captivate our society’s ever-shrinking attention spans, I think.
I generally like Cameron, and a lot of his work, but sometimes I think his visions far exceed reality and practicality. But, then again, he’s living a film-maker’s dream, and I’m not…
#55
Not all kids and teenagers are the dumb sheep you make them out to be. Some of them actually take an interest in “old” movies. But I guess on the plus side (hopefully) Avatar will cause many of them to take an interest in those “classics” and check them out and see a time when originality was still practiced in Hollywood.
I can’t wait to see the Avatar remake in ten years…
you have to have great characters to create a cult following like star trek and star wars. sam worthington was hardly captain kirk or han solo. the colonel was no darth vader or khan.
james cameron keeps cashing in.
@ Michael Hall #48
Again, I’m not “savaging” Avatar. I liked it for what it is: the most impressive piece of mindless spectacle ever filmed and delivers on the visual side and for that it was worth watching.
I am simply refusing to crown it as great cinema or even as a viable candidate for serious franchising. There just ain’t enough meat on that bone.
To your point about Trek 2009- yes, it borrowed from a lot of other Trek and Sci-fi concepts. But it also added a few plot twists and took some well-known characters and places into unexpected directions. Like Avatar, it isn’t going to be confused with Gone With The Wind or Citizen Cane. On the other hand, it delivered several surprises along the way.
With Avatar, I could have told you every single plot point I was about to see three minutes into the film. Hell, I hadn’t unwrapped my whoppers or put the straw in my coke before I had the whole thing figured out.
As I said above, I highley recomend watching the Plinkett review as old Harry explains my point in a far more entertaining, though somehwat disturbing, way than I can.
Plus he might mail you a pizza roll.
Why? Self-aggrandisement? Money?
Neither Tolkien, Roddenberry, nor Lucas planned a franchise fan following.
I doubt anyone can plan such popularity.
Cameron is doing good environmental work and should stay with that. Forget about Avatar. I never even saw it. The reviewer in my local paper called it ‘dances with Smurfs’ (a reference to Dances with Wolves). That was enough for me to pass on seeing it.
I don’t see how they can continue to pay so much money to make these films when students don’t have enough textbooks in schools . . . .
Or people dying in Pakistan (needing only about a third of what that movie cost.)
As a film with cutting edge technology behind it, I thought Avatar was truly extraordinary and it has really changed the industry I work in, but as a story it really left alot to be desired. I could relate to the characters in Dances With Wolves, as they were quite human, but just couldn’t get into any of the characters in Avatar. They just didn’t really resonate outside of the three hours and I would have been completely bored if it weren’t for the wonderful art direction.
No, donate your next 300 million to some causes this planet really needs.
Instead of another Avatar. That would be one way to top the record.
Camerons dreaming Avatar was good but not great.
@66. That’s just stupid. Some people both donate to charities AND watch films. People will do what they want with their money, not wait for the next disaster the media has latched onto and throw money at it to feel massively superior to the people around you.
wow, 66, get off that podium for a minute and enjoy life for once.
I agree that Avatar was all look with no substance.
Plus the fact that to had a recycled plot really din’t help because if you didn’t notice that it was Pocahantas and Fern Gully mixed with special effects, you should watch it again.
@54
Very well said, Red Dead.
All look with no substance? Really? Most people seem to be talking about how the plot “bored” them.
As for films that are mindless spectacle, they’re called “Predators” or :”Piranha 3D”.
# 6
I don’t recall Cameron insisting everything be 3D in fact he’s been critical of the recent spate of rushed 3D conversions as they’ve only served to undermine the process. I do agree that the last Star Trek film benefitted from NOT being 3D though.
#73
You can say that again about Predators. A cheap remake with no Arnold—geez, I should’ve stayed home and watched my DVD of the original.
@#73- Actually, I would compare Avatar to both the films you just listed in terms of character development and depth of plot. I think all 3 belong in the same category- though Avatar was at least pleasant.
You want a bad movie from last year that was mindless spectacle? Up is a petty good choice.
Put simply; no.
going into more depth;
No, Avatar isn’t strong enough or original enough to even consider having the level of fan-dom both Star Wars and Star Trek enjoy.
The fact that people are ‘raving’ (?) about Avatar at the moment is because Avatar was an amazing visual experience. I loved Avatar but What has made Star Trek and Star Wars lasting legacy’s is because each of those movies have characters that have a depth that the characters in Avatar just didn’t have.
The Story too – whilst there are only so many stories to be told in this world, most of which have been covered by both Star Trek and Star Wars, Avatar’s story lacked what it needs to become a lasting legacy.
Avatar, much like Titanic, will always be remembered for the new technology it introduced and the spectacular visuals. Where as both Wars and Trek are beloved franchises that will continue to reinvent themselves to suit the ever changing world we live in. Avatar is a stand-alone movie and unless the next movie focuses more on the story then the sequel will just be another visual feast…
Never saw it. Prolly will someday. If it has fans, cool. They can’t be worse than Whedonites.
Star Wars the OT is a beloved franchise, but most SW fans hate the prequels for using today’s technology. I think that’s simply stupid.
I ne’er saw Avatar… but I feels as if I have. I means, it wuz’ and still be all o’er tha’ place…
I agrees that Starry Trek’s early popularity lie somewhat in tha’ fact that ye’ didda’ not have videos nor d-VDs nor 200 telly stations showin’ ‘em ta’ saturate yerself. Soooooo… havin’ ta’ wait fur’ Local 12 ta’ show Kirk at midnight, ye’ made it more personal by inventin’ hot Ewok on Kirk action stories…
I wish Cameron success wit’ his vision o’ technology o’er heart, but I dread bein’ inundated by turquoise kitties…
Unless I cans lick them…
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…
i don’t care how many people or how much money Avatar has made.
its utter jism.
awful, truly awful.
it could never hold a candle to the venerable Trek!
lol @ 39 can’t stand the truth so he has to slander people.
also Avatar is all flash and no substance. Ya’ll should go pirate the original Avatar script…Cameron did a good job until he realized he could make more money just making it look good.
“@ Michael Hall #48
Again, I’m not “savaging” Avatar. I liked it for what it is: the most impressive piece of mindless spectacle ever filmed and delivers on the visual side and for that it was worth watching.”
Actually, fromy my perspective someone who liked Trek ‘09 accusing Avatar of being “mindless spectacle” is even more funny than their thinking it was derivative. But, YMMV. :-)
Avatar was just thought up by Cameron last year. He wanted to make Avatar ever since he did Terminator.
Trek 09 may not have been very deep but its story and characters were 1000x more interesting than Avatar
“They want to live somewhere else. Like Pandora.”
Incorrect assumption.
I took my family to see both star trek 09 and Avatar—As an example my niece who has hated what trek she saw on tv as boring,loved trek09–on the other hand my parents, dad was 90, mom 80 something–my father was amazed by the movie n the 3d–they liked trek but remembered Avatar as an experience they never had before–n now the bp oil spill certainly makes evil corporations destroying planets for profit a bit more real-I think Cameron has a shot at a franchise with Avatar-too soon to tell—-Incidentally my now 91 year old father stopped eating–he has a tumor-they will do palliative radiation therapt to hopefully improve his comfort level—i am hoping his comfort can improve-i am glad he liked Avatar–and our family is devastated-he has had a long good life-Enjoy and love your family members everyday like it could be your last day with them–
I love Cameron and am amazed by the hatred here for him. It should be the most sincere form of flattery that he wants Avatar to be better than Trek. Grow up and stop whining like of bunch of jealous babies, people.
#80
“Star Wars the OT is a beloved franchise, but most SW fans hate the prequels for using today’s technology. I think that’s simply stupid.”
I’m not going to speak for “most SW fans,” but I dislike the prequels because of the wooden acting, clumsy plotting, and Lucas’ awkward dialogue. Special effects have little to do with it. On the television side, the Clone Wars series is one of my favorites on the air nowadays, which is—go figure—not written by Lucas (he serves as executive producer). Old Georgie boy really should’ve used an Irvin Kershner-type to helm the prequel movies… but could’a, should’a, would’a…
“and it made it tricky to be a Trekkie for a while.”
LOL. Oh yes… i agree. The novels were ALWAYS contradicting themselves. I 100 percent agree. Even now…. Remember the Voyager Novels?!!?!? Captain janeway dies. Yet, its not really accepted as cannon value. Its sorta a mess. I know the Star Wars novels all fit in nicely with their own cannon. James Cameron seems to be paving the way for Avatar fiction to fit in nicely with the movies. Good job !
People use the phrases wooden characters and bad acting ALL the time when talking about sci fi movies. Even Trek. It’s nothing new. I enjoyed all six SW films.
Avatar can’t become another Star Trek. It’s because of the intimate nature of a TV series, compared to film, that Star Trek has the following it does. Star Wars achieved something similar not just because of the films, but because of the toys, which were innovative at the time and allowed kids to endlessly play out their own Star Wars stories, with perhaps even greater intimacy and involvement than a TV series provides. At the same time, Star Wars is more juvenile than Star Trek, which I don’t mean as a put-down, only that Star Trek offers more to think about.
The first Star Wars film and the first Avatar film have in common that they are fast-paced spectacles retelling a familiar story without a lot a depth. What Avatar needs is its own The Empire Strikes Back, a more serious, emotional film that builds upon the first and exceeds it, and really makes us care about the characters. James Cameron (Aliens, Terminator 2) has a good track record making a second film in a series that’s as good as the first and that some people may even like better.
No.
Problem with Avatar is the story was pretty darn ordinary. He would really have to start pulling rabbits out of his hat on future installments.
At least Lucas waited until Star Wars was an established phenomenon before he served up the bad stuff with great visuals.
90, I used to love Cameron. T1 and T2 are two of my favorite movies
there’s no doubt that james cameron is a great director, film maker. but there’s no way in hell the pandora world can compare to the lord of the rings, star trek, star wars, or even matrix worlds. its a great movie sure, but i just don’t find the appeal of that world. basically, what i’m saying is, i don’t really see how they can make sequels to it, how it could be interesting, and how it could inspire future literature in the world. maybe its just me.
#93
That may be so, but the prequel trilogy brought wooden acting to a whole new level. And, c’mon, you must see the difference in Mark Hamill’s acting when compared to Hayden Christenson’s Manakin Skywalker. Hamill had his off moments, but at least he put some occasional bit of enthusiasm into his performance.
But the biggest problem with the prequels was the lack of a Han or Leia character—a wise-cracking average Joe (or Jill) with whom the audience could identify; instead we got a bunch of Jedi speaking in monotones, jumping around trying to look distinguished while cutting droids and Sith in half. Yawn…
Wait, isn’t this a Star Trek website? ;)
98: Wait, isn’t this a Star Trek website? ;)
hehe isn´t it all about little flying saucers and people shooting lasers at little robots and little green men?
Hate to say it but those two folks standing with Cameron at the screening are wearing blackface… well blueface but if you really think about it same idea. Amirite?
Vultan;
Re: #91 and #98
Amen! ; )
For the most part, I agree that the SW prequels were a lot of spectacle and not a lot of heart.
Cameron would be wise to rethink franchising Avatar; as much as I enjoyed it, I could easily see it falling into the Star Wars’ prequel’s trap.
“It’s a TRAP!”
– the wisdom of Admiral Ackbar… hee hee
Vultan, you hate everything. What’s your point?
Avatar is a good movie, but Trek-like franchise not gonna happen.
#101
Well, I was making the point that not every Star Wars fan dislikes the prequel movies simply because of the effects, as you originally and so boldly stated. But apparently you aren’t ready to listen to others’ opinions and engage in any kind of thoughtful debate, and are content in using simple-minded, salacious remarks.
Have you ever considered a career in politics?
#99
Yeah, you might be right. Little green men, Klingons, big blue Smurfs—it’s all good! :)
No one can blame Cameron for trying to build Avatar into a franchise; every big franchise has to start somewhere. And you don’t really get a big movie like Avatar made without some grandiose thinking. But I would say that it needs to be so much more than a handful of movies to sustain the kind of following that Star Trek and Star Wars get.
#101
D’oh! I meant spurious, not salacious… though, both would probably apply.
Avatar already made more than all the Trek films COMBINED. It’s already a franchise. Meanwhile, Trek in the 90s was dying a slow painful death.
97. It’s just you.
DJ SPOK
It is pleasing to read these messages knowing that 90 percent of the star trek fans get it! Avatar never will be Star Trek. The story is derivative, the acting B-Grade, the eco message biased and in your face and the special effects don’t necessarily “enhance” the continuity of the film or story-line, the 3D actually gets in the way. 3D was first used in the 1950’s as a gimmick to get people back to the cinema and away from TV. 3D is still a gimmick today.
The Star Trek Universe, invented by the late, great Gene Roddenberry, is about a better future, where humanity has learned to combine great technological achievements with positive heights of morality to match.
#109 Lucas:
You hit the nail with the hammer! Your right on the money!!!!
MAN, people are getting defensive here…
I liked Avatar. Best of luck to Cameron.
I think the sad reality is that no one wants to hear the message that Star Trek sent out. That’s why they did a remake…
Of course, someone must remember that Cameron had to put a disclaimer in “Terminator” to acknowledge the works of Harlan Ellison. The Outer Limits episodes “Demon With A Glass Hand,” and “Soldier” were cited, as well as the idea of Skynet, which came from the classic story “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.” Ellison filed a lawsuit and the studio caved in, as Ellison had a legitimate case.
Cameron tends to “borrow” from other works freely… perhaps too freely.
So far, I don’t see Cameron’s vision for his franchise. So far it is lacking the depth that the universes of Trek, Star Wars and Middle Earth have. And this depth can’t be conjured up with one film. It has to grow over a longer period of time. Maybe the Avatar universe will evolve in time, but you can’t force it. You’d have to develop the cardboard protagonists into real characters first.
Man, those Avatarians are goofy looking. Nothing like we dignified and intelligent Trekkers. Not a lot of cosplay choices there either. Blue is about it.
It takes a heck of a lot more than flashy visuals and high box-office receipts to make a classic franchise on the level of Star Trek, James Bond, etc.
Star Trek earned its classic status the hard way over many years. Cameron wants to buy classic status. He needs to learn that money can’t buy everything.
When I saw the cast I thought “AVATAR” was a SMURFS reboot.
#51 Dr. Who just isn’t a big deal in the states. If I were to go all day all over my hometown and ask people about Dr. Who……the response I would get is………..WHO????
#113:… does not compute. That very message is why it resonated and survived and why it was viewed as worthy to revive in movie form.
Wow…I’m amazed at the arrogant fanboy attitudes here. I’m sure people said the same things about Star Wars when that came out in 1977 and Lucas decided to franchise it out.
Can Avatar become a strong, long-lived franchise? Maybe. There is no reason it can’t. The first film was very popular. Much of it depends on how well the potential two sequels Cameron has planned do. It can lead pull a Matrix and flop. It can pull a Star Wars and be successful leading to a host of other media tie-ins.
Clearly, Cameron likes this universe he’s created and wants to explore it more. What is wrong with that?
Re 121: I agree with what you say and no, there’s nothing wrong with Cameron planning to expand the universe. I just think you can’t force such things, you can’t just say: Now let’s have a huge fanbase, a deep fictional universe, etc., like Trek and the other big franchises. (Well, of course you can *say* it :-)
So I think Cameron is much, much too bold here. Maybe it’s arrogance, but probably it’s just over-optimism.
Who knows, but I’m guessing that Avatar can’t match Trek’s franchise potential if only because its overall storyline is focused on specific characters and events. Trek’s overriding theme of exploring the final frontier was infinitely broader in scope; the writers could literally go anywhere and do anything, with the decks being cleared for a whole new adventure the following week. The humans and Na’vi in the Alpha Centauri system just don’t have that kind of scope for movement or action.
(OTOH, if my first exposure to Star Trek had been the Abrams film I wouldn’t have seen much franchise potential in that either. Infinite possibility only counts for something if the writers and producers are up to the challenge of taking advantage of it, and I saw little evidence of that in Trek ‘09.)
@ 53. Vultan
are you asking Anthony to agree that TMN is a classy site?
No need I’ll agree with you on that point.
OR
Are you asking Anthony to chastise that bad man @39 who said BAD things?
bless……..
I just wasn’t blown away by Avatar. The story was derivative and the acting only OK. I saw a midnight showing of it and actually dozed off for a few. The SPFX were very good but that’s par for the course now. ST:XI was a better story with more interesting characters.
Avatar wasn’t derivative at all. Now, Iron Man 2? That was predictable and boring.
#114.
Actually that’s an often misquoted myth largely due today because Wikipedia still doesn’t know how to do due diligence on cited newspaper articles, i.e. they don’t know how to look forward at least a couple of weeks for corrections:
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-07/entertainment/ca-2720_1_screen-credit
If you note in the FOR THE RECORD, which is the LA TIMES correction emending the story, you’ll see an entry dated 7 days after the article’s initial publication:
“An item in last week’s Film Clips stated that Harlan Ellison had sued the makers of the movie “The Terminator” over a credit. There was no lawsuit filed before an agreement was reached to list Ellison in the film’s credits.” – “For the Record”, “Los Angeles Times”, “Home Edition Calendar”, Sunday July 14, 1991, Page 23
What did happen is that much later Ellison discovered through the initial Laserdisc release of TERMINATOR that the studio had failed to destroy all copies of the film lacking the credit as had been agreed and Ellison sued over the breech of THAT agreement and NOT to get recognition which all parties had agreed upon without any lawsuits having been filed. The important thing to note being that both the studio and Cameron agreed Ellison was due the credit without any threat of pending legal action.
Ah, Elison. He sues everyone.
#68.
In most theaters with which I am familiar, it is possible to BOTH donate to charity, and see a movie. And I don’t mean solely the pun.
#128.
Most sweeping generalizations are easily disproved: Ellison never sued my grandfather who was alive when Ellison initially sued Paramount et al. And now that grandad’s dead Ellison will never have the opportunity – so even the modifier “eventually” can’t rehabilitate your claim.
JIM LEHRER: Today’s top news story involves science-fiction author Harlan Ellison. In an unprecedented legal action, Mr. Ellison is suing everyone, both living and dead. He has also created a “reverse” civil action in which anyone ever alive, whether known to history or not, will be included.
BND: Awwwwwks! That be right, Jim! Courts all o’er tha’ country- nay!- tha’ world shall be tied up fur’ decades in this here litittiegous mess.
JIM LEHRER: I think you meant to say “litigious.”
BND: Crom! He e’en be suin’ tha’ blue meanies from that film Avatar!
JAMES CAMERON: That’s it! I got the idea for the sequel! How can a primitive culture defend itself from lawyers, injunctions, lawsuits, and a very angry man with sharp teeth?
HARLAN ELLISON: I’ll sue you again if you use that idea!
BND: Uh, Jim… I sees from undar’ tha’ newsdesk that ye’ dunna’ wear pants either… Say, wit’ tha’ courts all busy, wanna’ go knock o’er a 7/11?
JIM LEHRER: Only one that carries my brand of scotch.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…
Mr. Ellison if you read my post, don’t sue me. :(
The few things that do impress me about AVATAR is of course the FX (I still like old school ways better like Models, animitronics, animation, paintings so forth but CGI has its place to) and the Script, not the story, but the well written style.
He may have the resources to make a franchise, but a TV series would need to be made first, and not some fly by night one either, one that has more than just FX and environ messages, more like TOS, and thats a tough thing to duplicate.
Oh, and Phazer Guy, I wasn’t makin’ fun o’ you… just havin’ some chuckles wit’ “sweeping generalizations.”
I kidz cuz I’m drunk…
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…
No matter what is introduced. If a new nuiverse is shown it will take time to tell whether it will take root. We will wait and see whether Avatar will will evolve to a francise. Let’s see what happens
#134.
And yet, you neglected to include General Izations and his broom in the interview.
JIM LEHRER: General?
GENERAL IZATIONS: Ellison an’ his lawsuits: Dis prove nuttin’.
#124
I was asking Anthony to agree that trekmovie is a classy site… because he is usually good about discouraging people from nasty, political comments like #39. That’s all.
127. Disinvited
I appreciate the details, although I didn’t get that info from Wiki (perhaps the stuff I read was based on Wiki info, but I don’t know)… I do admit that second- or third-hand info is exactly that — second- or third-hand, and I’m not privy to any first-hand info. I think the “story” surrounding the “Terminator”/Ellison connection has been around for a long time, but, again, exactly that: in “story” form. One story claimed that Cameron joked with some back-stage person that he “ripped off a couple of Outer Limits episodes.” Would Cameron ever do such a thing? Well, he IS a professional, so I would tend to think this was NOT true. Maybe some backstage person actually had it in for Cameron? Or, then again, Cameron is a human being, so I wouldn’t be surprised since I’m never surprised at anything human beings do. In the end, Ellison got some credit, apparently where credit was due. I still think Cameron borrows a bit too freely from other sources. I don’t think that makes him a bad person, just lazy, perhaps…
sorry i havent been paying attention to this thread but there has been a few attempts at political hijacking and trolling I see. so please stop that. And stop with the personal attacks, even on James Cameron.
Find ways of debating/discussing without resorting to labeling, namecalling, etc
Cameron cannot decide if Avatar will be a franchise. Though much reasoning can be unknown, a Franchise just HAPPENS its not told to happen. Trek caught fire yes a lot of hard work and strong support and persavearece Loyalty and love sustained. Trek and still does. So avater you have a ways to go.
He should have stuck with the Terminator franchise.
District 9 has more potential than Avatar concerning the toy market.
Where’s my RAH Wicus complete with interchangeable Prawn arm and gun?
#138.
Didn’t mean to imply that you had used Wikipedia, but I did mean to hold various news media’s recourse to it without understanding its weaknesses responsible. The Wiki CAN be a useful tool but you have to verify it’s sources, especially newspaper article cites.
As for your ultimate observation, I think the two talented James, Horner and Cameron, are perfectly suited for each other.
Perhaps if he tried a different angle. Like greeni nudist weekends in the bush where everyone dressed up like navari.
You would see the biggest conversion to the green movement in history.
141. Disinvited
I do agree with you regarding the news media, our reading/hearing of it, and the need to verify sources, etc.
I think this is one of the trickiest things in the world to actually do, since we, the general public, are not in a position to get the truth “fly-on-the-wall-first-hand.” Apart from our personal experience, everything else we find out about is second- or third-hand information.
For example, we read a newspaper article about “X.” Now it comes down to A) who wrote the article; B) is the writer presenting an accurate, truthful account of “X”; C) is there a way we could actually verify the account of “X”; D) do we blindly believe what was written?
I’m sure we all trade some knowledge we’ve acquired — fully believing we are giving away factual, truthful information — but that knowledge cannot be known with 100% accuracy since we weren’t witness (in most cases). To some degree, I think we are conditioned to do this. And then this is why, I believe, so many people in positions of authority manage to pull the wool over our eyes — at least until someone else who is in a position to know pulls the rug out from under them.
I don’t think the news, in general, is unbiased, accurate or even truthful in many cases. And then it comes down to which version of the news we want to believe is true, which is just based on our own preferences. The “truth is out there.” I just don’t know if we’re getting it, or how we would get it.
Then again, I admit I’m a cynical sonofabitch…
Pandora’s atmosphere is not fit to breath! I will take a Trek class M planet any time LOL
#39 I watch Foxnews every day and I haven’t heard the movie Avatar mentioned even one time, nor has Gov Palin weighed in on the movie.
#66 The millions invested to make a film usually produce a profit. I think most Hollywood types and fairly generous in their charitable giving. However, if they took that money and gave it to 3rd world countries, there would be no return on the investment, they would eventually go broke, and the 3rd world countries would still be 3rd world countries. You can give someone a fish, or you can teach them to fish for themselves. Most third world governments don’t want their citizens to learn to fish for themselves. They want their citizens dependent and needy, their much easier to control that way. The capitalism practiced in the US finances most humanitarian work done in the world.
“The capitalism practiced in the US finances most humanitarian work done in the world.”
Um, no. That’s not true in any sense, particularly in terms of dollars relatede to gross domestic income. Don’t take my word for it–look it up.
I don’t hate “Avatar”, but I’m baffled by its extraordinary popularity (it should be noted I am similarly baffled by the popularity of “The Godfather”, so maybe its just me.) Can “Avatar” become a huge franchise like Star Trek or Star Wars? Sure it can. It can also be the next “Alien” franchise, with one or two good movies and a bunch of increasingly forgettable flops.
#148
Look up Korea. Take a good look at the North and then the South, then get back to me on whether capitalism is good or not.
# 126
“Avatar wasn’t derivative at all. Now, Iron Man 2? That was predictable and boring.”
I’d have to disagree with you. Go look at Pocahontas and Fern Gully, then tell me Avatar isn’t derivative.
126. Phaser
Derivative is not the same thing as boring and predictable.
I didn’t see Iron Man 2, so I cannot comment on it.
I thought Avatar was extremely derivative, and at least reminded me a lot of Dances With Wolves.
The film was visually stunning, and the WOW factor was pretty high. But the story did not have much depth to it: poor beings stand in the way of something the powerful villains want, but they manage to fight back. And the most engaging character was Zoe’s, IMO. But the story left me rather flat, and I didn’t really care about the Na’vi all that much… Just my 2 c.
Every movie is derivative of something. There simply are no original ideas that have not been expressed in some form over the last 3000 years. The last Star Trek film for instance was one of the most derivative films I’ve ever seen, drawing heavily upon features of other major SciFi franchises, as well as storylines from its own. But that alone doesn’t necessarily make it a bad move.
“#148
Look up Korea. Take a good look at the North and then the South, then get back to me on whether capitalism is good or not.”
Okay, but that wasn’t the issue, was it? The assertion was that capitalism practiced in the U.S. is responsible for financing most of the humanitarian work done in the world, which is simply not true. Now, if #147 had meant to write “capitalism as practiced in the U.S. was respnsible, they may have made that point more a little more clearly.
Since Trekmovie is suppsed to be a non-political site I’ll forego commentary, “Vultan,” on whether the choice confronting humanity really boils down to Stalinism on the one hand and U.S.-style corporatism (which is actually as far removed from classic laissez-faire as the NY Stock Exchange from a Renaissance marketplace) on the other.
#154
Oh, I’m sorry. I misunderstood your previous comment, thinking to be another broad attack on capitalism—there have been quite a few of those on this site recently. Anyway, I’ll be more careful with my nonsensical comments in the future. ;)
#155, pas problem. :-)
FWIW, I did see the longer cut of Avatar this morning, and while the extra 9 minutes of footage won’t change the mind of anyone who thought Cameron made himself a cool bil just by moving Dances with Wolves to the Alpha Centauri system and plastering on a little CGI, an important scene has been restored for this version that does add some nuance to the story that had previously been missing. After Jake and Neyteri exchange firewire connections and various bodily fluids, the sacred trees are flattened and, as in the theatrical version, the Na’vi rally behind the clan leadership’s call to war. Quaritch moves to shut down the avatars after seeing the footage of Jake smashing the bulldozer’s camera, but the next scene shows the dozers in flames and their armed escort slaughtered by the natives. So when the humans attack and bring down the Hometree it’s not simply an act of greed, but retaliation for what the soldiers perceive as an unprovked massacre. This, I thought, had something resembling genuine historical tragedy to it, and addressed the human-bad/Na’vi-good narrative which was one of the original version’s biggest weaknesses.
Unless he changes things somewhat so that humanity isn’t just the enemy, who would want to consider themselves a member of the Na’Vi while holding their own species in complete and utter contempt?
Yes, there has been the Klingon craze among the Trekker fan base, but they have always been a fringe group within the base, since most Trek fans are not Klingon-obsessed generally.
Pointing out that there’s nothing new under the sun is nothing new. That phrase alone is over 2,000 years old. Look, anyone who hangs around our lovely internets and especially on TV Tropes know that it’s all tropes. It’s true that virtually nothing is truly original now, but it’s all about how you can recombine, finesse, dress up, and mutate the tropes you use. Star Trek ‘09 was Troperiffic, no question, but it joined its concepts to iconic characters who engage the audience’s interest, a sense of pacing, and a Big Bad who had a discernible motivation for his actions, Disproportionate Retribution though they were. Avatar takes a set of well-worn tropes and fails to put any kind of spin on them. The characters are thin, the villains are just nasty for no apparent reason (ever think of telling us what that “unobtainium” is for, Jim?) and the whole thing is just brimming over with cliches. If Star Trek is a theme and variations, then Avatar is the haunting Torgo theme: a couple of measures repeated over and over with no variety. In Star Trek ‘09, I of course knew the outcome: the Good Guys save the day! But I enjoyed getting there, having an adventure with some of my favorite Starfleet officers (and of course, the fact that Vulcan friggin’ imploded was a bit of a curveball.) In Avatar, I again knew the outcome, but I didn’t care how it happened or even that it happened, and by the two-hour mark, I was getting pretty tired of being struck about the head with an anvil.
I enjoyed Avatar as a tech demo for about 30 minutes. After that, I was nodding off. It’s all my opinion, and maybe I’m jaded, but I see no disparity in enjoying the hell out of Star Trek ‘09 while finding Avatar to be a derivative snooze-fest. Once you know your tropes well, you’ll spot them everywhere, but in one work, you might say “Hey, that was a great use of that trope!” while in another, you might see the same trope and say “Bah, seen it a million times” because the creator didn’t bother to make it his own or even make it interesting.
158. Majicou
I agree with you. A lot of the attraction to Star Trek, for me, was just being with those “old friends” again. The characters in Avatar just didn’t create a sense of “intimacy.” They were just there — to some degree simply being dragged through a rather flat storyline.
If there truly is nothing new under the sun, then — more than anything — a story must rely on its characters, and how they react and respond to these old tropes. One of the greatest tv series (IMO) was M*A*S*H. They had some of the simplest storylines, but the characterizations always managed to raise that show above that simplicity.
Quite frankly, I thought the opening of Trek09 alone had more heart and soul than all of Avatar. Just my opinion, of course…
“Quite frankly, I thought the opening of Trek09 alone had more heart and soul than all of Avatar. Just my opinion, of course…”
Well, that’s fair. Of course, from my particular POV–that of someone who has loved TOS as well as the best of the latter series and movies since the early ’70s –there was more heart and soul in the scene in Avatar where a crippled war veteran gets to experience the simple joy of wiggling his toes in the dirt, albeit in an alien body, than there was in all of Trek ‘09 put together. But that YMMV is what makes it all interesting. :-)
160. Michael
Of course, your POV is fair enough, also. I could be wrong, but I think it’s also a matter of what we relate to, at times. For example, in the beginning of Star Trek, I could relate to a woman losing her husband in a battle, a man sacrificing his life for his wife and child — because these are human experiences we are all familiar with, if not even directly.
A crippled war veteran wiggling his toes in the dirt is understandably a joyful experience, but the fact that it was in an “alien body” is what took me out of it, made it less real, less something I could relate to — and knowing it was CGI affected me, as well. I could relate more to the scene in “Die Hard” when John McClane wiggles his toes in the carpet after his air flight.
I don’t mean to nit-pick, but I think there are some things about films that affect us in more subtle, almost subconscious, ways… not always obvious. I’ve met lots of people who didn’t like a movie that I thought was great, yet they couldn’t really say more than, “I didn’t like it.” I think there were things about those movies that affected them (negatively) in ways they couldn’t really verbalize. I don’t know if what I’m saying has any bearing on your POV, since “self expression doesn’t seem to be one of your problems,” to quote a famous starship Captain ;-) Nevertheless, I think you would agree that not only do we all simply disagree at times, but sometimes we can’t even relate to what another person is relating to in the first place.
And yes, it is all interesting !
Using MWI to reboot the franchise to make the future of these characters unpredictable, and without erasing the old, was a brilliant and NEW idea for the franchise.
It was far more original a strategy, for instance, than rebooting TOS as TNG, and then again as Voyager, and then again as Enterprise. Paler and paler imitations of the original series they tried to mimic, and each one a product of linear network TV thinking.
ST.09 was a heck of a curveball that reprised the kind of bold thinking that TOS was known for.
That ST.09 was also a fast paced humorous action movie neither changes nor detracts from that fact. And that it had some scientifically mysterious devices is about as meaningless a criticism for Star Trek as one can imagine. Yet some people revere the Genesis Device and abhor Red Matter as if one were real and the other a pure fantasy.
Also, many fans seem to prefer the we’re-just-pulling-your-leg attitude of so much previous Trek where nothing substantive happens on a permanent basis, and all problems are solved and all things return to normal (i.e., what fans are accustomed to) by the end of the story.
This film didn’t play that silly game either. And I’m glad.
i actually enjoyed this mostly good, but some were not.