Are there like fourteen original plots or something? Why can't one of you come up with another original plot and then we could get something fresh to watch?
I mean like a shaggy dog that talks with the voice of Peter Lorre or something like that? Kirby McDaniel MovieArt Original Film Posters P.O. Box 4419 Austin TX 78765-4419 512 479 6680 www.movieart.net mobile 512 589 5112 On Feb 16, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Doug Taylor wrote: > David, > > You know, your colleague is right and I need to take a different look at how > I judge films. All the young people today may not have seen Dances with > Wolves or Pocahontas. In fact, Avatar or another contemporary film may > become their “Pocahontas”. > > I’m going to look at these films in a new light. Thanks for the insightful > comments. > > Regards > > DBT > Profile > > From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David > Kusumoto > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:16 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MOPO] AVATAR > > ** It's been a while I've written anything of length to MoPo; write it off to > being too swamped to get into the fights and what-nots during the past 5-6 > months. > > ** Meanwhile, you're right, Doug -- "Avatar's" story line has been done 1,000 > times before, and that's my only objection to it. "Avatar's" script > resembled "Dances With Wolves Meets the Blue Man Group" -- with the standard > theme of "money-grubbing corporations" raping the natural resources of a > planet populated by blue aliens -- whose every utterance is noble and > forcefully profound, e.g., like lines given to every Native American > character in Disney's "Pocahontas." > > ** Anyway, I was put in my place by a former colleague and mother of two kids > who agreed with me -- but who told me -- (and she was right) -- "you know, > you and your historical film references makes you old and out of date -- it > makes everything you see today sound irrelevant with a "been there and done > that" feeling. Well, that's not true for everything. Zillions of people are > paying $15 to see 'Avatar' without your historical references; they don't > care about "Dances with Wolves" or "Pocahontas." Even if they did, those > pictures were made 15-20 years ago, before today's movie goers were born; > they were made in ways that seem obsolete or less engaging to kids today. > This doesn't mean old films are less important. It just means they're not > important to young people YET. Someday they'll like them. Like we did. > Geezuz, we weren't all born in 1920. Young people buy WAY more tickets than > old people. Remember how you used to go to every opening night? You don't > anymore because you hate long lines. You're not supporting the industry and > you're well past the 'sell-by' date for mass entertainment. So stay at home > and watch PBS, TCM or HBO. 'Avatar" may not be the best picture of the year, > but it is historic and my kids loved it." > > ** I thought about this tirade for a moment and I said, "you know, you're > right. Most people coming out of 'Avatar' are having fun -- and I admit it's > astounding that a guy like James Cameron can knock out hit after monster hit, > while having total control of material that, unlike Spielberg, always seems > to strike industry watchers and the bean counters to have an "iffy" quality > -- BEFORE they're released. Cameron's films never SEEM to feel like they > will be guaranteed box office gold until AFTER word-of-mouth spreads." > > ** The box-office receipts of Cameron's last three films including "True > Lies" -- have blown past everything Spielberg has done since 1993, including > "Jurassic Park," a film at the time I thought was a technological game > changer. I just wonder whether "Avatar," even as a "game changer" -- has a > story/script worthy enough to be a Best Picture. "Titanic" beat back those > same obstacles in 1997 with an old-fashioned, 1940s type love story that had > teenage girls returning in droves. > > ** I liked low-budget picture, "The Hurt Locker" -- and was shocked that I > also enjoyed the true story of Baltimore Ravens tackle Michael Oher in Sandra > Bullock's "The Blind Side" -- but "Avatar" didn't hit me in the gut. > Honestly, the best performances I saw in 2009 came from Meryl Streep as Julia > Child in "Julie and Julia" and Christoph Waltz as the smooth Nazi in > "Inglourious Basterds." > > ** If I had to root for a single picture, it might be "The Hurt Locker," but > only because I think it's the first picture about the war without a political > message; none of the actors "debate" why they're in Iraq. There's no > sledgehammer message. It's a strange film whereby the emotional centerpiece > is the adrenaline of survival; some soldiers have it and some don't; this > adrenaline is all that matters to the main character played by Best Actor > nominee Jeremy Renner. I also thought "The Hurt Locker" was a giant leap for > action director Kathryn Bigelow, who's never done anything like this. If > anything, its neutral political stance underscores how many soldiers are > ignorant of the politics of anything they're involved in. They just do their > job. > > ** But my gut feeling is the 9 films going against "Avatar" -- all have the > "Gandhi" hex hung around their necks. That is, if any picture OTHER than > "Avatar" wins -- it will be a dubious distinction akin to "Forrest Gump" > beating "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Pulp Fiction" in 1994; "Shakespeare > in Love" beating "Saving Private Ryan" in 1998; "Chariots of Fire" beating > "Reds" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981; "Ordinary People" beating > "Raging Bull" in 1980; "Platoon" beating " Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her > Sisters" in 1986; "The English Patient" beating "Fargo" in 1996; "Dances with > Wolves" beating "Goodfellas" in 1990 and "Gandhi" beating "E.T" in 1982 and > on and on. I remember being angry when Oliver Stone's "Platoon" beat Woody > Allen's "Hannah" in '86, the latter film much decorated in the all-important > acting and screenplay categories. And last week, I put on "Shawshank" on the > DVD player and my wife and I were in tears all over again. Still a great > picture. > > ** I know the Oscars are such bullshit (and not the original point of Doug > and Kirby's posts below) -- and I know these trophies are laden with the > "politics of their day" -- which have proven time and again that the > Academy's choices do not a classic make. But if "Avatar" loses, I sense many > will feel like they've witnessed the "crime of the century," further exposing > the gulf between the Academy and popular sentiment (arguably as they should > be) -- but over a picture that is not only a box-office smash, but has also > received good-to-great reviews. I won't mind if "Avatar" wins because I do > know people who think despite its high-school-ish script (esp. the romance) > -- that the picture is a critical and commercial juggernaut that should NOT > be denied the biggest prize on March 7, which has forced many production > companies to re-tool their future releases to integrate the 3D format in a > "non-intrusive" way, which is "Avatar's" biggest strength. > > ** Despite 10 Best Picture nominees, I'm kind of indifferent this year, not > one film screams "stupendous." But I was emotionally responsive to 5 of the > nearly 35 films released in 2009, one of which is not even among the 10 > nominees: "The Hurt Locker," "The Blind Side," "Up," "Inglourious Basterds" > (despite its excesses) -- and "The (500) Days of Summer," the latter which I > thought was going to be a stupid, sophomoric young-love beach film -- but > turned out to be a new way of telling a story about a broken urban romance > that doesn't get near a beach or a keg-party. Wonderful surprise. > > ** A digression -- I did not object to "Annie Hall" beating "Star Wars" in > 1977. "Annie Hall" was a film I saw in contemporaneous release and I did > feel at the time that it broke new ground for Woody Allen and for the "urban > comedy genre" in a different way that "Star Wars" broke bigger ground for > family entertainment the same year. But I also vividly remember going to > work the next day. My work mates asked me, with great incredulity, "Star > Wars lost to Annie WHAT? Your movie choices SUCK." I loved both films but > I've never forgotten how that experience exposed me as a high-button, > stuck-up, holier-than-thou snob. -d. > > > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:31:56 -0500 > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: AVATAR > > To: [email protected] > > > > Much better script than Titanic, although a story line we've seen 1,000 > > times the last 90 years. > > > > I've haven't seen anything better this year. I had high hopes for Hurt > > Locker, but it just doesn't pack the punch to compete. > > > > Regards > > > > DBT > > Profile > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kirby > > McDaniel > > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 11:18 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [MOPO] AVATAR > > > > Here's my reaction. > > > > I finally saw it. > > > > Spectacularly realized. Doesn't lag much. Screenwriting is a little > > stilted at times while trying to explain things to audience 8 to 80, but > > that's quibbling. Gorgeous in 3D on the full IMAX screen. 3D is some of > > the best I've ever > > seen in that it seems to be "of a piece" with the film after a while. Very > > beautiful to > > look at. Reminded me at various times of aspects of other films - LAWRENCE > > OF ARABIA, > > ALIENS, of course, THE STAR WARS stuff, naturally, although without the > > Flash > > Gordon cornball factor, especially RETURN OF THE JEDI with it's scenes of > > the ewoks. > > And BAMBI of all things -- I was looking at some of the color in the Disney > > animation the other day, and some of the same coloration and tone in AVATAR. > > So huge in its palette that one just simply has to hand it to James Cameron > > - he > > must be some kind of superman. The film is laden with messages, but it's > > all stuff I can pretty much get behind. What surprised me was how touching > > it was at times. > > > > Oh yeah, really cute people. And they're blue. It's not easy being blue. > > > > Kirby McDaniel > > MovieArt Original Film Posters > > P.O. Box 4419 > > Austin TX 78765-4419 > > 512 479 6680 www.movieart.net > > mobile 512 589 5112 > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > Send a message addressed to: [email protected] > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > Send a message addressed to: [email protected] > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
