Can't stop me that easy, Andrew. I'm actually as much interested in film criticism and theory as I am in film-making; if I can't write 'em, hopefully I'm going to make a career writing ABOUT 'em. It's great talking about films on here with intelligent, knowledgable people (I include you in that).

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films As for what defines "a truly great film", that's up to you to decide. Do I think a truly great film has to work on the small screen? It's an interesting question, but I would say no. Is the Mona Lisa as good in a photograph as it is in real life?

Ah, but that comparison doesn't hold up, because of the differences between the two media. There's only ONE Mona Lisa. Whether you're buying a photograph (by which I assume you just mean a standard-size), or buying a canvas print, it is impossible to fully appreciate an artwork until you've actually seen it. Film isn't like that - you're not watching the original, you're watching a replica. Film is, in fact, a medium of replication. Therefore, the two media are so different that you can't actually compare them like that; any replica of a painting will lose an essence of the original, whereas by your logic I'd have to go back to the original stock that Cameron shot Avatar on in order to 'fully' appreciate it. I know you know that, but I just want to point that out because on the surface it seemed like a very astute analogy!

I also want to pick up on the other point you made. It's not about it being 'small screen vs. big screen'. Would Avatar have been a better film if it was shown on a screen a mile high? No (I know that's a rather pointless question, but hopefully you see what I mean). I was talking about a specific set of technological conditions that Avatar requires in order to be viewed properly. If, as I did a couple of nights ago, you watch The Godfather on DVD on a 15-inch, standard-definition laptop screen, you'll enjoy it just as much as if you watched it on Blu-Ray on a 52-inch HD plasma flatscreen TV. To me, it's not about whether a film works on a small screen. A truly great film should work regardless of how you watch it.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films With home entertainment becoming increasingly sophisticated it's important that film evolves and keeps cinema alive. Avatar was a bold step in that direction.

I obviously agree with you there. As an experiment, as a pioneering step toward creating a certain kind of movie-going experience, Avatar should be applauded. But that doesn't make it a great film. In fact, because its focus is so much on a certain kind of experience, that actually LIMITS its greatness.

In the 1st Academy Awards in 1929, the Academy handed out two 'Best Picture' Oscars; one for Best Picture, and another for 'Unique and Artistic Production'. The latter category has never been used in the 80 ceremonies since. In my mind, Avatar would be more deserving of that kind of award. To simply hand it the Best Picture Oscar - at the expense of other, and in my mind more deserving, films - would be to completely overlook what in my mind are pretty important, fundamental problems.

Your move, sir.

There's nothing else I can say really, it's just a matter of opinion.

In term of my Cinema viewing pleasure I much prefer movies like Avatar, Star Wars, T2 than character pieces.

I can just as easily turn round and say it is a weakness of those type of films that they don't make use of the scope of the cinema. That while good, they are just not using the cinema to its full capability.

As for more deserving films: I haven't seen any, and I've seen most of them at one festival or another or at home.

Other than District 9 nothing came close to it in the whole year.

For me those two films are the best I've seen in years and so I hope it cleans up at the Oscars.

If people applied such stringent criticism to Avatars competitors, I think we'd see a lot of fundamental problems in those as well.

EG Inglorious Basterds. It's a fun film, but it's silly, far-fetched and pointless at the end of the day.

I enjoyed watching it at Cannes, strolled the red carpet, gave Quentin a warm round of applause and then fucked off to the free bar. No-one really talked about it afterwards.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I can just as easily turn round and say it is a weakness of those type of films that they don't make use of the scope of the cinema. That while good, they are just not using the cinema to its full capability.

I could pick up on that and go on about the distinction between the work itself and the performance space in which you consume it, that the Mona Lisa (to use your comparison) would, in theory, be as good a painting if you hung it in the Louvre or in the toilet at a MacDonalds...but I think I'm starting to seem boring and argumentative.

Also, I don't really understand what's so special about the Mona Lisa anyway!

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films If people applied such stringent criticism to Avatars competitors, I think we'd see a lot of fundamental problems in those as well.

Oh, definitely. I don't deny that. As you say, to each his own.

EDIT: I see that today Avatar has officially become the highest-grossing film of all time. If you're top of the pile, expect people to analyse you pretty closely!

ANOTHER EDIT: this article is quite good - http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/2010/01/26/12618771.html - no idea who Michael Rechtshaffen is, but it seems I come down on the PGA side, while most of you come down on the Golden Globe side. In fact, if you're looking for a narrative in this (and as writers, when are we not?), this could be seen as a battle over what the focus of 'film' should really be. What Peter Bradshaw calls 'effect vs affect'. The Hurt Locker has assumed the role of champion of an alternative to CGI, effects-laden fare. Of course, what would be great is if there was a twist ending and something like Precious or Up in the Air won!

Quoted from JonnyBoy I could pick up on that and go on about the distinction between the work itself and the performance space in which you consume it, that the Mona Lisa (to use your comparison) would, in theory, be as good a painting if you hung it in the Louvre or in the toilet at a MacDonalds...but I think I'm starting to seem boring and argumentative. Also, I don't really understand what's so special about the Mona Lisa anyway! Oh, definitely. I don't deny that. As you say, to each his own. EDIT: I see that today Avatar has officially become the highest-grossing film of all time. If you're top of the pile, expect people to analyse you pretty closely! ANOTHER EDIT: this article is quite good - http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/2010/01/26/12618771.html - no idea who Michael Rechtshaffen is, but it seems I come down on the PGA side, while most of you come down on the Golden Globe side. In fact, if you're looking for a narrative in this (and as writers, when are we not?), this could be seen as a battle over what the focus of 'film' should really be. What Peter Bradshaw calls 'effect vs affect'. The Hurt Locker has assumed the role of champion of an alternative to CGI, effects-laden fare. Of course, what would be great is if there was a twist ending and something like Precious or Up in the Air won!

I find that last point quite ironic personally.

The Hurt Locker was straight bullshit dressed up as realism. As a narrative I thought it was appalling to the point of offensiveness.

An EOD man a better shot than the SAS. Get to fuck.

It would be a travesty if that film won over a Cinematic and historical milestone.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The Hurt Locker was straight bullshit dressed up as realism. As a narrative I thought it was appalling to the point of offensiveness. An EOD man a better shot than the SAS. Get to fuck. It would be a travesty if that film won over a Cinematic and historical milestone.

My cue to stop, I think. Didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers.

Thanks dec, it's been fun. I respect your opinion, and you're clearly an intelligent, informed person - just happen to completely disagree with you over this one, that's all! No doubt we'll have round 2 once the Oscar nominations are announced, and probably round 3 once they've picked the winners.

Quoted from JonnyBoy My cue to stop, I think. Didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers. Thanks dec, it's been fun. I respect your opinion, and you're clearly an intelligent, informed person - just happen to completely disagree with you over this one, that's all! No doubt we'll have round 2 once the Oscar nominations are announced, and probably round 3 once they've picked the winners.

You've not ruffled my feathers and my outburst isn't directed at you, I'm just responding to the article.

I'm not really concerned with awards to be honest, mainly because of what that article reveals. I have a deep distrust of the way a lot of bodies seem to function and that article stinks of a fix up.

Decisions being made on political agendas, instead of on merit.

I've been following the avatar debate for a few weeks now, and thought I'd put in my two bob's worth.
I haven't seen the film, don't intend to in any medium. I was interested when the trailer came out, but it showed the whole story so wasn't keen all of a sudden.

I'm still wondering why Cameron chose to make almost the whole picture CGI. Surely he could've at least had real forest scenes (like Return of the Jedi) and shoved the effects on top.
To me, a film that has only a few real actors in it, and the rest is CGI, is no different to Shrek or Ice Age, or any one of the hundreds of full CGI type films.

Ok, i know some people loved avatar and some thought it over-rated; its the same with all movies I guess.
One more thing: being the number one box office flick doesn't always equate to an equal quality. The same with music - 'Thriller' is far and away the best selling album of all time, but wouldn't be in any top 50 lists for the best.

Stevie, my friend, don't say that until you see the movie.  The backgrounds, forests, etc. all look 100% real.  You will be completely immersed in the picture...as if you were literally there.

BTW, the trailers do not give the entire movie away in any way.  I was quite surprised with a whole bunch of things, both plots points and details that I found to be amazing.

See it...in 3D1  No excuse not to.  You will be kicking yourself forever if you don't!

My 2 bobs worth...

for your information....

http://klik.tv/articles/view/4b4d77b6-4650-441e-b784-4d87ac1102ee

Quoted from michel for your information.... http://klik.tv/articles/view/4b4d77b6-4650-441e-b784-4d87ac1102ee

This really puts the scene where he wrestles that animal to the ground (against its will) and connects his tendrils to it into perspective.    

Quoted from dresseme This really puts the scene where he wrestles that animal to the ground (against its will) and connects his tendrils to it into perspective.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I felt a little uncomfortable when Jake and the Na'vi joined tendrils with the animals of Pandora. It was like like they were performing some kind of sexual act with them. The deleted sex scene from the movie reinforces my feeling about it.

Quoted from JonnyBoy Thanks dec, it's been fun. I respect your opinion, and you're clearly an intelligent, informed person - just happen to completely disagree with you over this one, that's all! No doubt we'll have round 2 once the Oscar nominations are announced, and probably round 3 once they've picked the winners.

Interstingly enough, James Cameron's ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow directed of The Hurt Locker.

Finally got round to giving this baby a 3D view. More importantly, a second viewing to assess my original view on it.

The end battle scene was very enjoyable in 3D and the visual mixed with the powerful score did make this true Oscar bait, irrespective of its BO performance.

The same issues stick with me, and they relate to the heavy-handed message, and the wedged in corporate theme.

That aside, it is a good movie, and while not perfect, I do reiterate that it's a step forward for film, and evidence of Cameron's truly wonderful imagination.

Worth a second viewing in 3D if you didn't first time 'round.

Andrew

I don't understand the logic behind releasing the  movie now and again in November as a 3 Disc special edition with like 30 minutes more.

Frankly it was above average and nothing else. Doesn't do anything new unless being blue is something you've never saw in a film before.

It doesn't even try to hide how straight forward and dumbed down it is. It's like a Disney animated movie.

The only thing I didn't get is why they cut Norm from the film so awkwardly. You last see him get shot and wake up gasping and clutching his arm but alive and when the Colonel breaks the trailer where he and Jake are located he has just disappeared.

It was 5am when I was getting to the end so I may have missed something but if I'm right he isn't dead but awkwardly cut from the film.

Norm is standing with Jake in the end watching the other humans leave.

~Zack~