Avatar Explosion

If you have a face, you've most likely seen James Cameron's Avatar by now. I'm calling him "JC" since he seems to be the self-proclaimed "King of the World" ever since Titanic. Just like our buddy Jesus, JC is changing our world and gathering believers. But I feel that Avatar is drawing a crowd not because it is a quality film, but rather because it's really damn expensive!

Any time a studio drops $300 million on a movie, you know people are going to watch it. Why? Because people want to know what $300 million will look like on film. If someone said that there was a $40k refrigerator, I bet people would be flocking to the Sears to see what $40k worth of in-home refrigerator technology looks like. My guess is that it would, at least, have an ice maker. My issue is this: Sure, it'll be a very well-built fridge (as Avatar is a well produced movie), but is it actually worth $40k? And would there be another fridge with similar capabilities for far less?

I believe that JC could have made his newest blockbuster without spending such an extravagant amount of money. But, one must ponder, was the announcement of the movie's budget part of its marketing strategy? Did JC and the studio believe that if people saw a bunch of goofy aliens in a trailer and heard the budget was $100M that they would think it's just another Sci-fi nerdfest? I bet they did because it definitely peaked my interest when I learned of the movie's budget.

After seeing the first trailer, I sat there thinking: "Meh, I've played video games that look like this." Then I heard the budget was topping $300M and I began to say: "Yeah, I need to see what this is all about." After seeing Avatar (which is basically a graphically superior combination of Disney's Pocahontas & Ferngully), I realized that it was just a visual treat with an unoriginal story. Yeah, we get it, the bad government/military is going after a technologically inferior race/group...how many times have we seen this in movies? Side Note: Pocahontas & Ferngully's combined movie running times is roughly equal to that of Avatar's.

I am not saying that Avatar was a bad movie, it is just not a fantastic movie. And how it has held the #1 spot at the box office for the past 6 weeks had been confusing me. That was until I realized that most people had probably not seen imaginitive visuals like this before. I have, though, on my Xbox and Playstation. Big blockbuster video games have just as much, if not more, imagination than JC's monster.

Whatever the reason you went to see Avatar, you cannot deny the fact that the announcement of its big budget was a large reason why you went to go see it. I doubt as many viewers would have seen it if there wasn't this much hype about the technology, visual splendor and cash injected into the film. Case in point: District 9. With a $20M budget, Neill Blomkamp made a very intelligent and original film approach to the SciFi/Alien genre. It didn't have nearly as much hype, and thus, not as large of an audience compared to Avatar. However, in my opinion, it had one of the more though-provoking plot/situations of any movie in 2009.

If you bring up the fact that Avatar has very thick political undertones, I direct you, again, to Ferngully & Pocahontas. Avatar was good entertainment, but I can enjoy a better plot and more inspired visuals in a video game. Moreover, District 9 had more substance and deeper political commentary. Who needs a $40k fridge whose main draw is that it can make ice cubes in the shape of the Titanic when you can get a Kenmore that comes pre-stocked with food?


Adam Santini