We are confusing commercial success (which is certainly important and something we can talk about), with the "quality" of the film. I thought Avatar completely sucked. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
... As anything we could with a straight face refer to as "art" it doesn't crack the top 10,000.
I agree with the the fact that the script is second rate and the acting is competent but certainly not in the top league. The sound and music doesn't qualify IMHO as masterpiece but it's certainly world class, same with the editing and as for the visual design and CGI work, not "art"? Are we talking about the same film?
All art is ultimately a language of communication. What's important is the people who experience our art are engaged by it. The cross section of people we are trying to engage, the target audience, is a decision for the film maker but I would suggest James Cameron's target audience is quite different from the majority of indy film makers. Cameron took significant risks in the format and artistic design of Avatar, yet succeeded in stimulating and engaging a huge percentage of his target audience. For this reason alone Avatar is a "good film" and there are lessons to be learnt from it, in the art of story telling, which are applicable to all film makers. For a film maker to say that it "completely sucked" and is "one of the worst films I've ever seen" is IMHO, either extremely disingenuous or extremely ignorant.
I mean we can argue about whether Miley Cyrus is "better" than Hank Williams Sr because she's sold more records than he did, but it's hard to do it with a straight face.
Music (as a product offered for sale to the public), like with film, is a collaboration of professionals: Singer/Musician, song writer, recording engineers, producer, mastering engineer and marketing. There is a great deal of art and talent in the product sold as "Miley Cyrus". For example, in the creation of energy by the recording engineers, producer and mastering engineers. There can't be any doubt that Hank Williams was a better singer and performer than Miley Cyrus but we can make an argument that as a music product, Miley Cyrus is "better" than Hank Williams and in some respects even artistically superior (mastering and production for example) and no, it's not hard to do it with a straight face. The only people incapable of identifying any artistic merit in the Miley Cyrus product are those outside the target audience and with little or no appreciation or understanding of how a musical product is created. I personally hate Miley Cyrus' music and judge her as relatively talentless but as an experienced professional I am also able to identify, appreciate and learn from the skills and artistry employed to create it.
...I'll never get back the 3 hours or the $20 it stole from my life and I'll blame James Cameron forever for that. It was total and complete dreck.
Avatar provides a masterclass in many of the film making crafts, including arguably the most important, how to manipulate an audience. Even if I had hated Avatar, as a film maker it was more than worth the 3 hours and the $20. I don't mean to be insulting but even if you were the greatest film maker who ever lived, I still feel you could've learnt enough to justify the $20.
I'm not saying you should like Avatar, that's down to personal taste but looking at it as a film maker, Avatar is an amazing achievement and deserves a great deal more respect and appreciation, especially from people who should have at least a reasonable understanding of how difficult it is to make a film.
G
