By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mazty on 09 May 2012
Edit Thread
rocketpig said:
Mazty said:
rocketpig said:

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather be PT Anderson any day of the week over James Cameron. Money isn't everything and I'd rather be known for creating amazing, memorable movies than be known for getting rich off film-making. Shit, I could list at lest 100 directors I'd rather be than Cameron... Including George Lucas, insanity and all. Popularity does not equal meritocracy.

James Cameron has three ideas and he just reuses them. That's not someone I'd want to be any more than I'd want to be Justin Beiber. I'd rather be his ex-wife with the pure trashy awesome of Point Break and the pure awesome of Hurt Locker under my belt.

Titanic won 14 oscars, while Aliens and The Terminator are still regarded as fantastic films. Cameron is regarded as one of the best directors in existance and not for getting rich off film making. Why is it that people see how much Avatar made and are blinded by that one figure?

Hurt Locker was a terrible, terrible film. Nothing more then exploitative garbage with utterly vacuous unlikeable charaters. 

Hurt Locker was exploitative? What, because it showed a bunch of soldiers getting off a little too much on their dangerous jobs? That was the entire point... Those guys were completely fucked by the experience. Were they likable? No, they weren't supposed to be likable (at least Renner's character wasn't). Did you miss the point of the film?

I said Titanic was a great film in a later post. I also think Aliens is pretty great, though it's not nearly as good as Alien. The Terminator wasn't a great movie... The entire story, characterization, and acting is paper-thin. Still, it's a decent movie.

I don't hate James Cameron. I've enjoyed several of his films. But he reuses the same plot points and characters over and over again. By the time Avatar rolled around, I've been there and done that too many times to be impressed by it. Plus, Cameron did it better in both The Abyss and Aliens.


It was explotative because it showed a warped version of Iraq whilst the director pandered towards the actual troops out there. The little boy being killed? Cliche. And the bomb being strapped to the father? Oh come on, that nonsense is fitting for the Saw series, but not something that's trying to portray war accurately. They weren't fucked because of their experience; they were two dimensional and cliche. A soldier that doesn't care whether he lives or dies? Well neither do I which kind of makes the film redundant if you don't care about the characters. 

If you can tell me how Avatar, Terminator and Aliens are similar enough for it to be a flaw, I'd be interested to see what you have to say. 

As I've said to another user, Avatar was family friendly which really doesn't leave you with many options. As a film is more then just the story, the score and cinemtography were fantastic as well as the pacing. The storyline was okay, nothing special, but it certainly wasn't bad.