So, I finally decided to go see Avatar. The whole enchilada in IMAX 3D. This is what I thought of it...
The ContentWhile the film is without doubt a visual tour de force that is all it is. The story is so weak that it struggles to carry what is a very superficial action film and one realised at a phenominal cost. To my mind there are also massive holes in various parts of the plot. In particular the bows and arrows attacks on the combat machines I found rather jarring, especially since there is a sequence earlier in the film with the native's arrows clattering uselessly against the windows of the machines. For the climatic battle to have been beliveable in my eyes it would have required far more guerrilla tactics and a much greater level of involvement from the 'Gaia' inspired native 'Eywa'.
A fair bit has been said in a number of reviews about the depth of Avatar's creation of an entire world. Visually this is true. The depth and breadth of the environment that was created is impressive. But for the most part it is candyfloss - fun but no substance - and I found certain parts of the alien ecosystem jarred. The telepathic link between the herbiverous horses was acceptably believable but between the carniverous (judging by their dentition) smaller flying creatures was not. It was especially not believable for the dominant carniverous flying creature that allows Jake Sully to become the Na'vi messiah.
It has an ending that while consistant with the weakly conceived story is entirely predictable and simply not believable. To my mind the only possible way the ending could have worked would be if it was obvious that the entire planet's ecosystem had driven off the 'industrial military complex' and that any military response was futile. As it is, having lost the initial battle 'the company' would simply return with a masive invasion force and implement a 'regime change'.
The TechnologyThere are very few films that I consider virtually perfect from a Special or Visual Effects perspective - 2001 and Blade Runner come to mind, and now Avatar is another. For a film that hardly contains a second that does not have some level of CGI or post-production effect in it there was only one shot that I spotted that did not quite fit. For someone that looks at films the way I do, that is quite an achievement.
From a technical point of view the '3D' is quite impressive but a number of scenes reveals that of course it is not really 3D, it is 'Steroscopic'. If your eyes try to focus on an object that is not the focus of the camera then it is actually quite disturbing and stressful when the object refuses to come into focus. Having said that, to their credit, they do not overuse the stereo-vision. While it is clean and crisp, and 'works' I think it adds very little and certainly not enough to justify its cost.
The MoneyAvatar is currently being touted as the highest grossing film of all time but my understanding is that there is a lot of unspoken number manipulation behind that statement.
The studios are admitting to having spent in the region of $200M on it but rumour is that it cost nearer $500M and that is
without taking into account the cost of R&D that preceeded it. If those numbers are correct it means that even having taken $2Bn at the box office that means that as a % return it is only just profitable. A film requires something in the order of 4:1 Box Office takings to Production costs in order to recover its costs.
This is not the first time that James Cameron has done this. While Titanic was also purported to have cost $200M there is a fair amount of internal industry discussion that suggests that the completed film cost nearer $400M with indications that phenominal amounts of money were squandered during the production by Cameron. One statement in particular that I heard at the time was that he was shooting incomplete scenes and stating that they would be completed in post by Digital Domain (a company that he partially owned). There is an interesting statement in the Wikipedia entry on Digital Domain:
In 1998, after the box office success of Titanic, James Cameron and Stan Winston severed their working relationship with Digital Domain, and resigned from its Board of Directors.
Rumor has it that Cameron was forced to resign and give up his share of the company as part settlement for the overspend on Titanic.
Two major production companies ended up being deeply financially involved with Titanic (Fox & Paramount) with suggestions at the time that if it was not a box-office success it would do both of those institutions a great deal of financial damage. It is not unlikely that one of the reasons that it swept the boards at the Oscars was the MPA trying to do its bit to protect those production companies. While that may just be malicious gossip, for a director to be given the film industries' highest level of commendation (only Ben Hur and Return of the King have previously achieved that level of Oscar wins) and yet to spend 12 years in the movie wilderness suggests that there was something amiss.
So now we have Avatar. Again admitted to having a huge budget with rumours around of much higher final costs - vigorously denied by Fox. My gut feeling is that the elevated costs are probably true, it may not be easy to tell though. If Cameron was frozen out again then it would be obvious. However, this is a film where much of the assets are technological R&D and digital artwork. A sequel has been proposed. What better way to try to recover some of your costs than to capitalise on that R&D and re-use your digital artwork. What Cameron gets to work on after that will say much about what Avatar really cost the film industry.
ConclusionAvatar is a nice piece of Sci-fi but the only thing great about it is the technology it has brought to bear on its visuals.
I would not recommend it without heavy reservations. I would not buy it on DVD/Blu-Ray. I would only watch it again as a technical exercise.
To me it is the wrong way to produce films. Effects should help you tell a story (which they do in Avatar) but there has to be a story worth watching.
