Avatar is possibly the most beautiful CGI movie ever!

[Reasonable]

megaman79 said:

Khuutra said:

megaman79 said:

Generation X was 7 years old, at a minimum, when Star Wars was released. You got your generations wrong bro.

I hate this Cameron bashing so much. Show me a 20 minute action sequence in ANY movie in the last 20 years (arguably ever) that is as perfectly timed and minutely detailed as the mental hospital scene in T2? You can't.

Infact i have been thinking of how Kubrick and Cameron have some things in common. 1 - the cold machine like direction in their films. 2 - Perfect timing in terms of directing and editing.

Did you just compare Kubrick and Cameron?

You better run for your life before rocketpig gets back

Yea, i don't know why i said that publicly, i know im going to get beatings. Its just something ive been thinking about lately after rewatching Camerons entire filmography.

Like what i mentioned above with the Abyss, its not that much of a stretch. Just because one is a director of "popular entertainment" and the other is a director of "art" films does not mean they have no similarities.

Don't feel bad.  I'm a Kubrick and cinema nut, but actually while Kubrick is clearly superior artistically, technically they share a lot in common.  Kubrick contacted Cameron to quiz him on CGI and effects with regard to A.I. and I believe was appreciative of Cameron's undoubted technical skills regarding cinema and what he'd done in The Abyss and Terminator 2.

The difference I see is in where they focus their  drive for perfectionism and the balance of Art vs Entertainment.  Kubrick while American showed a very European sensibility to that mix, and was really interested in having a higher balance of Art vs Entertainment, although I'd argue he was very savy on entertainment too, always judging his films cost and approach to make sure he would secure a decent profit every time.  In short, Kubrick wanted everything to be as near to perfect as he could get it, the script, the performance, the set, the lighting and of course the complete edited assembly of the film.

Cameron, like Spielberg and certain other US directors, pitches towards entertainment first in many cases and is more willing to settle for a 'good enough' for script, performance and story than say a Kubrick.  Cameron himself has stated this quite openly, and has remarked that he 'makes movies rather than films', calling Titanic his 'accidental film'.

Clearly the guy knows he's targeting entertaining 'movies' with broad brush themes vs the more artistic notion of a 'film'.   As an aside, I sometimes feel the 'movie' vs 'film' classification is the cinematic equivilent of the 'casual' vs 'hardcore' classification in videogames, but I digress.

Both Kubrick and Cameron (and Speilberg probably deserves more recognition in this area) are (or were in Kubrick's case) very focused on the technology of filmaking, and achieving exactly the image they wanted on the screen.

Funnily enough, despite feeling Avatar was a 7/10 movie - I'm now seeing it as more of a 8.5/10, after having seen it again (more by accident than design TBH).

I'd say it's a 7/10 story, but a 10/10 cinematic experience, and the second time around I really got a better feel for just how far he'd pushed the CGI/3D technologies - so balancing it out I've decided it's an 8.5 overall and definately an unmissible experience of you really want to see just what 3D and CGI can offer.