Movies & TV

23723 readers

37 users here now

Rules for Movies & TV Discussion

Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.
Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.
On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.

Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.

AVATAR 3

Perverts Guide to Ideology

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

WhyEssEff@hexbear.net

Zoift@hexbear.net

Walk_On@hexbear.net

Infamousblt@hexbear.net

Grebgreb@hexbear.net

invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net

James Cameron is basically just George Lucas at this point (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by ephemeral@hexbear.net to c/movies@hexbear.net

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

the Avatar sequels have most of the same problems as the Star Wars prequels. they're terribly written - with bad plotting and pacing, weak dialogue and characters I couldn't possibly care about. at the same time, they're visually stunning spectacles that push the boundaries of what can be achieved with computer graphics - tech demos for the future of digital cinema. which I'm all for, but unless the movie is good we're just watching grown men play with their toys

both series of films are centered around antifascist / anti-imperialist themes which makes their utter mediocrity all the more disappointing. Avatars 2-3 are especially disappointing given Cameron's track record with sequels. it does seem that once your net worth surpasses a certain point you become incapable of making good art

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] EnsignRedshirt@hexbear.net 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

James Cameron makes films so that he can get someone else to finance his real passions. He made Titanic so he'd have an excuse to build a submarine. He fully understands how to make good films, but his objective is to get an excuse to do technically-interesting things in a big-production setting. His most reliable path to that is to make big key-jangling films that do well commercially so that they keep giving him more money to do whatever he wants.

Lucas cares about the art, he just sucks at it. The prequels were his ego project where he thought he knew better than everyone else about how to make Star Wars. Cameron knows how to make art, but it's not what he's after. He just makes the thing that he knows will work so that they keep giving him carte blanche to make new cameras and whatnot. The comparison between the prequels and the Avatar films is reasonable, but I think Lucas and Cameron arrived at those places in different ways.

Cameron never made another Aliens or Terminator or Titanic because he didn't have to. Lucas never made another decent Star Wars movie because he didn't know how.

This is not meant to be lionizing Cameron too much, just that he very clearly knows how to make successful films, and he also very clearly enjoys playing with technology more than he cares about art. Art is no longer a useful vector for his success, so he's not going to waste his time with it.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

If I had the talent, I would 100% go the Cameron route. Make slop with good craftmanship and just mid-brow enough that people argue whether it's slop or not while I blow the millions of dollars on projects I actually care about.