Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
I saw the film yesterday. In comparison to the first film, it's more of the same. Weak/cliche writing with nice visuals. It just feels like a big-budget video game simulation. The first one was a literal Pocahontas rip-off, this one had some Free Willy thrown in.
It's not a big improvement. The only thing that was particularly impressive was the underwater cgi. It's the best underwater cgi to date, but with the amount of money put into this film, it would've been sad if it wasn't. That said, I didn't come out of the film wowed by the experience like I was with the first one. I'm not sure if it's because cgi, in general, has improved since the first film, so it's not as groundbreaking, or what......And I have absolutely no intention of seeing any of the upcoming sequels.
As for the characters being likable, some are alright. I found the kids kind of annoying, though.
Still, why the insecurity on his part (esp. given that his movies seem to be better-liked, in general)?
Wonder what the deal is for him. (Still, arguing that you did something better -- esp. when your most notable example of feminism in storytelling is that the woman's only importance is that she's an incubator for the real hero vs. movies where the woman really does get to be the heroine of her own story -- is a bad look. Not saying he's a Whedon-level hypocrite, but how much of his own KoolAid has he been drinking?)
Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
(All-New Wolverine #4)
If I recall correctly, the most substantial complaint is that superhero movies are taking “spots” away from director-derived projects in production schedules.
And I *do* think there’s a major difference in where the storytelling genesis and priorities are for the MCU - the narrative and character arcs are given more focus as a matter of course, and writers and producers have almost equal influence to the directors themselves, and visuals have a standard, but not a very realist type of one.
It’s pretty much the exact opposite of the “auteur theory” of how films should be made - where the director is the greatest and at times singular progenitor of everything in the film. I’m okay with that, since I think the auteur theory is a load of nonsense.
But with Cameron in particular, there’s likely a simpler, specific reason - he’s a man who defines his creations by visuals, to the extent he would take a decade to fine tune visuals to his preference, and the MCU is the opposite of that.
Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?
I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP
I guess. What is weird is Cameron makes many movies that could be considered super-hero movies. They just dont have a dude with a cape. And not just him, but other directors as well. I mean people can extrapolate a heroic character and make him a super-hero. From Clint Eastwood in a western, to Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, to Arnold in just about every movie he has been in. These directors seem to want to determine what is a super-hero and what is not. Luke Skywalker or Indiana Jones or James Bond might want to have a word about that.
Eastwood’s Westerns are not superhero movies.
However, your larger point and everyone calling out Cameron’s hypocrisy are spot on.
Cameron, except for one big budget epic disaster movie, makes fantasies. He makes scifi schlock.
I’m not saying Cameron is not among the all-time great directors. Certainly, for his pushing technological innovations alone, he is one of the great directors. But he’s no Scorsese or Coppola. Cameron’s not even as good as a Spielberg or even a Sidney Lumet. Hell, Cameron isn’t even as good as Ridley Scott
He’s also a hypocrite, taking that Disney cash and distribution for his movie, money which was earned in at least some small part by Feige’s MCU and invested in Cameron’s production.
When I hear Scorsese’s or Coppola’s complaints about superhero flicks, i listen. They’ve earned it.
Cameron? Come off it. Cameron is full of crap. Cameron’s the guy who helped make “Hasta la vista, baby” a catchphrase. Ingmar Bergman he is not.
Last edited by Brian B; 12-18-2022 at 02:35 PM.
Honestly, as much as I like MCU movies, the only difference between them and your regular action movie is that the main character isn't cut from the same cloth as every other action movie. The protagonist is a new archtype, and well acted.
All Avatar is, is a pretty action movie. Without visuals, I doubt anyone would remember the first one. Cameron just wants to pretend to be better than it is.
Yea for me maybe its the media or whatever they are always trying to " classify" something as a particular genre. What Arnold does in Commando or Predator, or Bruce willis does in Die Hard, or Harry Potter or Gandalf or Luke Sky Walker or Ashoka or these blue people do in Avatar isn't much different than what Daredevil, or Doctor Strange, or Wolverine or Spider-man does. I dont spend my time ripping on Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter or Star Wars. I like them all to some extent. I dont have to say well yea sure Gandalf can destroy trolls with his magic spells but that doesn't make him a " super-hero" he's a wizard.
Movie was dope. I'd watch at least another one.
I heard, after watching it, that Sigourney Weaver played both the old and young related roles in the movie. She's really so cool.