We just got back from seeing it in SF

Post #322,182 by rcareaga 3/1/10 12:49:09 AM Reply	We just got back from seeing it in SF "IMAX" 3-D. Agree with your review in broad outline. I actually expected less of the script than it delivered, and think that some critics faulted Cameron for failing to deliver something he hadn't attempted. Pandora was a densely-textured, immersive world, and the nine-foot CGI smurfs moved and emoted believably. As to the "predictable" development...well, old son, if we're thinking of the same thing, this is actually a hallowed, decades-old cinematic tradition, and an ironclad rule of "action" screenwriting: when the villain finally Gets His, be he never so cold, cruel, sardonic, pitiless, there must come a moment at which he realizes that his doom is upon him, and in that moment his composure must visibly crack just before he is crushed/impaled/disintegrated/blown up/devoured by piranhas/dropped from a great height/poisoned by a cyanide canape/bitten in half by a T-Rex/subjected to a rigorous tax audit, etc., etc. The villain is almost never rendered instantly and unexpectedly dead by a headshot fired from a high-powered rifle by an unseen sniper. cordially,
Post #322,183 by drook 3/1/10 12:59:54 AM Reply	Didn't see the last episode of The Sopranos, did you? But then it's arguable whether Tony was the villain or the protagonist. -- Drew
Post #322,188 by jake123 3/1/10 8:38:37 AM Reply	He was the pro-to-GAH-nist.
Post #322,192 by drook 3/1/10 9:40:21 AM Reply	What spell-checker are you using? Because Firefox, Google and Merriam Webster all agree with me. Unless you're making a pun, in which case I'm not getting it. -- Drew
Post #322,207 by jake123 3/1/10 5:33:11 PM Reply	The one in the Phantom Menace 70 minute review...
Post #322,190 by boxley 3/1/10 8:56:41 AM Reply	no. Tony was a villian? If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,194 by rcareaga 3/1/10 10:01:54 AM Reply	different genre, different genus The Sopranos wasn't "action" screenwriting, and Tony was not the ice-water-in-his-veins type of bad guy (the "evil overlord") audiences yearn to see humbled. We'd already seen his composure crack wide open on scores of occasions. The end of the series, incidentally, was brilliant, perfect. cordially,
Post #322,208 by static 3/1/10 7:14:31 PM Reply	I've been doing some writing of my own. Including seeking some instruction from others who write stories for a living. There are common elements in stories that all humans are born to respond to, irrespective of race. James Cameron would have been foolish in the extreme to ignore this. It doesn't matter that Avatar is not an original story. But there's a helluva lot of production around it that is new: so, in fact, you don't want an original story! Just an original and coherent imaging. Which James Cameron is actually very good at doing. So is J.J. Abrams. So is Ridley Scott. So is Jerry Bruckheimer. So is Steven Spielberg. I could go on... The "predictable development" was Jake and the Toruk. :-) But it was a plot-element, not a critical development. It could have been written out, albeit with some difficulty, or foreshadowed less predictably, which could have given it greater impact. But crucially, it didn't overshadow more than it should've. It wasn't meant to: it was an action for the benefit of the Na'vi, not the cinema audience. Our attention was on their reactions. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

Welcome to IWETHEY!