Is The Abyss James Cameron's Best Film

[Chen G. 3,949]

It is storytelling in the sense of conveying something through the pictures: it doesn't necessarily have to be something that's pertient to the film's plot, but its something: an idea, a mood - whatever.

 

They're not (or shouldn't) just be there to be pretty.

[bruce marshall 1,315]

Cameron is not Malick.

He is a plot driven director.

So, if he fails in that aspect of filmmaking, his films don't work

[Thor 7,504]

Quote

 

It is storytelling in the sense of conveying something through the pictures.

 

They're not (or shouldn't) just be there to be pretty.

 

 

No, they're not there just to be pretty. But they're there to fulfill a different function than telling a story.

[bruce marshall 1,315]

My head is about to explode!

 

Goodnight, everybody😊

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 minute ago, bruce marshall said:

He is a plot driven director.

So, if he fails in that aspect of filmmaking, his films don't work

 

He is.

 

But he never fails in constructing his plots. All his films have coherent plots. You may not like some of the plot developments or the way they unfold, but there's a difference between having flawed plotting (which, again, virtually every film has) and having a plot that doesn't work.

[GerateWohl 4,369]

I think, the comparrison with Godard and there are films working without stories does not work in discussions about Avatar.

If Avatar had no story and we would just see the big snurfs and human's doing thing there this might apply. But since Avatar HAS actually a story, and this is really a weak and cliché story the film does not fulfill the requirement of just transporting moods and so on without storytelling.

The movie does storytelling, just bad storytelling. You might not care about it, but it is there.

[Thor 7,504]

6 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

Cameron is not Malick.

He is a plot driven director.

So, if he fails in that aspect of filmmaking, his films don't work

 

Not at all. His priorities are often in constructing worlds and letting the audience experience that world. Closer to an amusement park attraction, in the way they are experienced. Which is why he constantly pushes technical boundaries. There are stories there, of course, but they are rarely original or gets priority. They are just a framework through which one experiences these worlds.

 

So it doesn't really matter if AVATAR is a POCAHONTAS knock-off. That's not what gives the film value. The "being there" aspect does.

 

3 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

I think, the comparrison with Godard and there are films working without stories does not work in discussions about Avatar.

 

I think it does. Obviously, they are two very different directors with two very different "projects". One is very much Hollywood, the other is very much not. But in both cases, it has to do with using the film medium to do something more than just telling a story. If stories were the be-all, end-all aspect of filmmaking, people would be reading books instead.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

9 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

I loved AVATAR when I saw it in 3d IMAX.

When I watched it at home, I was struck by the cliched and predictable script.

My.opinion dropped considerably.

ALIENS is a film I can watch again and again.

I'll never watch AVATAR again.

 

I do agree that Avatar (like Gravity) loses much of its power on the small screen in 2D. That doesn't take away from what incredible cinematic experiences they were however. Which is after all how they were meant to be experienced.

 

Also agree that Aliens is much more rewatchable than Avatar.  But Aliens is after all Cameron's best film! 

[Chen G. 3,949]

9 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

But Aliens is after all Cameron's best film! 

 

Oh, that's a tough one.

 

For action, I prefer Terminator 2 and for drama I preferTitanic, so...

 

Its an embrassment of riches, I suppose. Even Avatar, which I agree loses some of its effect in 2D, is still rewatchable on the small-screen in a way that a Gravity or a Dunkirk are not.

[A24 4,333]

23 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its an embrassment of riches, I suppose. Even Avatar, which I agree loses some of its effect in 2D, is still rewatchable on the small-screen in a way that a Gravity or a Dunkirk are not.

 

Very subjective of course. Cameron never took me along the journey with Avatar but I was completely taken along the ride with T2. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 minutes ago, AC1 said:

I was completely taken along the ride with T2. 

 

But then, Terminator 2 is one of (if not the) greatest action films ever made, so...

 

There's no rule saying that every film James Cameron makes needs to be on-par with Terminator 2.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

30 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its an embrassment of riches, I suppose. Even Avatar, which I agree loses some of its effect in 2D, is still rewatchable on the small-screen in a way that a Gravity or a Dunkirk are not.

 

Yeah but to be fair Gravity is dealing with much weightier subject matter.

[GerateWohl 4,369]

30 minutes ago, Thor said:

Not at all. His priorities are often in constructing worlds and letting the audience experience that world. Closer to an amusement park attraction, in the way they are experienced. Which is why he constantly pushes technical boundaries. There are stories there, of course, but they are rarely original or gets priority. They are just a framework through which one experiences these worlds.

 

So it doesn't really matter if AVATAR is a POCAHONTAS knock-off. That's not what gives the film value. The "being there" aspect does.

 

Apart form the story exactly that world building aspect was very week in Avatar from my point of view. The methaphore was all too clear to show a world's ecosystem where all things are not just invisible connected but actually visibly connected. But the motiv of people getting connected to a system in an otherworldy manner has been show much better and more interesting in several Cronenberg movies or even in The Matrix. This was quite unoriginal. Same how the natives were drawn here. For an otherworldly worldbuilding Cameron created these elements a little to obvious and familiar as if he was afraid that too unknown and savage world building could distract our attention from the story he wants to tell. And there we are back to the story telling topic.

 

For me Avatar shows that in this case Cameron was neither interested in story nor in world building but simply in technology for film and how to use it. It is something like a template to show: Look with this technology, a great script and good ideas for world building you could make great science fiction movies. Probably that even was his intention. So, let us see, what the sequels will be.

[A24 4,333]

22 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

For me Avatar shows that in this case Cameron was neither interested in story nor in world building but simply in technology for film and how to use it. 

 

Dead on!

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

1 hour ago, GerateWohl said:

For me Avatar shows that in this case Cameron was neither interested in story nor in world building but simply in technology for film and how to use it.

 

One second later...

 

1 hour ago, GerateWohl said:

 Look with this technology, a great script and good ideas for world building you could make great science fiction movies. Probably that even was his intention. So, let us see, what the sequels will be.

 

Well which is it? Are you saying he was interested in good story & world building or not?

[GerateWohl 4,369]

17 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

One second later...

 

 

Well which is it? Are you saying he was interested in good story & world building or not?

Sorry if I could not make myself clear. For me there is no contradiction.

1. For Avatar 1 Cameron just delivered technology for people who in future could use it for actual movies to make then good movies. And Cameron might be one of them with Avatar 2-4 in case there he might be willing and able then to concentrate more in story and world building instead of the newest technology.

[Thor 7,504]

2 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Apart form the story exactly that world building aspect was very week in Avatar from my point of view.

 

Well, that's your prerogative. I obviously disagree completely. There was a sense of 'touch' and texture in everything. There was also this wonderful sensory overload that just makes you want to explore.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

This discussion reminds me of a bunch of stories like this that were floating around when Avatar was in theatres.

Quote

Audiences experience 'Avatar' blues

 

James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.

 

On the fan forum site "Avatar Forums," a topic thread entitled "Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible," has received more than 1,000 posts from people experiencing depression and fans trying to help them cope. The topic became so popular last month that forum administrator Philippe Baghdassarian had to create a second thread so people could continue to post their confused feelings about the movie.

 

 

[GerateWohl 4,369]

 

1 hour ago, Thor said:

Well, that's your prerogative. I obviously disagree completely. There was a sense of 'touch' and texture in everything. There was also this wonderful sensory overload that just makes you want to explore.

 

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

This discussion reminds me of a bunch of stories like this that were floating around when Avatar was in theatres.

 

 

Oh. Ok. 

Then it simply did not work for me.

Maybe I am missing a certain sensitivity that would have let me be more impressed by movie.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

14 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

 

 

 

Oh. Ok. 

Then it simply did not work for me.

Maybe I am missing a certain sensitivity that would have let me be more impressed by movie.

Don’t feel bad. Not feeling suicidal because you can’t live inside the cinematic equivalent of a Yes album cover is nothing to be ashamed about!

[A24 4,333]

15 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

Oh. Ok. 

Then it simply did not work for me.

Maybe I am missing a certain sensitivity that would have let me be more impressed by movie.

 

Same here. I was merely impressed with the technical side and that's why to me it's more a good 'demonstration film' than a 'good movie'. 

 

6 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Don’t feel bad. Not feeling suicidal because you can’t live inside the cinematic equivalent of a Yes album cover is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

If only it looked like the work of Roger Dean!

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

9 minutes ago, AC1 said:

If only it looked like the work of Roger Dean!

Not even close!

[A24 4,333]

But ... Roger Dean lost his lawsuit against Cameron! I guess you can't beat Cameron money. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bespin 8,482]

What I love about James Cameron is the good relations he always have with the composers of his movies!

[GerateWohl 4,369]

What made Cameron rise in my director ranking was listening to the deluxe edition of the Aliens score and realizing how much of the music that Horner had composed for the movie that Cameron decided not to use and making the movie by this probably much better than it would have been with the additional music. The score works perfectly in the movie like it is.

[blondheim 1,157]

7 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

All storytelling ideas are to some extent recycled.

 

For some reason, only Cameron gets accused of this.

 

I don't care about the recycled story ideas, I really don't. As mentioned above, it's the line-by-line writing I find tremendously insipid.

 

It's the praise that bothers me. I don't care if people like The Phantom of the Opera, but don't call it the greatest musical of all time...

[bruce marshall 1,315]

Cameron was passionate in delivering an anti-war, pro- environment message in AVATAR and other films.

I admire him.greatly.for that.

AVATAR made the US ARMY.the villain. Pretty gutsy.if you ask me

[Corellian2019 386]

Probably the main positive about that film

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

1 hour ago, bruce marshall said:

AVATAR made the US ARMY.the villain. Pretty gutsy.if you ask me

 

Actually the military in Avatar is a private security force.

[Jay 37,364]

And Jake Sully is a former - not active - Marine

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

I think perhaps Cameron made the military in Avatar a private security force because there was quite a bit in the news at the time about the misdeeds of private military companies (notably Blackwater) operating in Iraq.

 

And Cameron actually presented the "Colonial Marines" in Aliens in a pretty positive light, which led to a mini-recruiting boon for the US Marines.  The Marines in the Abyss, on the other hand...

[Bellosh 3,419]

Avatar did not hold up for me on viewings outside of the 3D cinema experience.

 

As far as The Abyss, I really need to rewatch it. I've only seen it once when I was a kid.  This thread has put it to the top of my list to rewatch it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The Abyss is a fine film just not his best film.

[bruce marshall 1,315]

49 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Actually the military in Avatar is a private security force.

American military.

49 minutes ago, Jay said:

And Jake Sully is a former - not active - Marine

So?

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

12 hours ago, Thor said:

If stories were the be-all, end-all aspect of filmmaking, people would be reading books instead.

 

I'll wait for the adaptation.

[bruce marshall 1,315]

The point is he didn't make them some generic organization I.e. STARSHIP Federation, " United Nations Expeditionary Force".

He was explcitly making a statement against US imperialism.

If you want to nitpick, be my guest.

 

 

Btw TITANIC is his best film

[Bayesian 1,363]

I haven’t watched the Abyss in years and cannot answer the OP’s question. But with regard to Cameron’s other movies, he is as reliable as they’ve ever come in terms of making entertainment that begs to be seen on the biggest, most advanced screen you can find. And there is a level of command in his direction that simply never fails. He’s even better than Spielberg in that regard, or at least more consistent (although to be fair, Spielberg has directed a lot more films and I’m leaving True Lies out of this.) 

 

Cameron has a singular gift for making the lizard part of my brain squeal in glee. When I was watching Titanic for the first time at age 18, I sure as shit didn’t care about the supposedly bad dialogue or romance—all that mattered to me was that I was being given a front-row seat to watch how this ship went down and managed to take so many people with it, and my greedy eyes could not get enough of it. Every detail was precious. (I loved from the very first time, for example, the details you see in the electrical room just before the lights go out throughout the ship—it’s a scene that lasts, what, maybe 6-7 seconds? And yet it’s seared into my brain. I’ll bet you anything Cameron spent relatively as much to make that set look real as he did for the promenade decks or what-have-you, which get a lot more screen time. But they’re all equally important. No detail too small. 

 

In Avatar, you think I cared about the basic plot? Fuck the plot. I’m being presented with the first truly realistic otherworldly environment in god knows how long, with actually plausible vehicles and tech for once, and on top of all that, I’m being given a grand tour this world, being shown how truly scary it would be when a really big tree comes down on top of you, or what it would be like to fall to the ground from two miles up or how it might feel to be nearly killed by some terrifying jaguar-like creature. You can have your precious plot.
 

In so many movies (looking at you, MCU, but certainly not just you), I watch at a distance, never actually buying what the filmmakers are selling because the premise is never really believable. But Cameron, he makes movies that you believe could really happen (or actually did happen, in one case). He takes you places and leaves you there, even after the movie has long left the theater.

 

I cannot wait for the next Avatar. 

[blondheim 1,157]

I don't begrudge any of you your happiness but I can't get lost in a world where the dialogue is so terrible. I am too aware that what I am watching is badly written and so I can't fall through the screen like you all seem to be able to. I don't care about stupid plots either, for god's sake I am a Star Wars fan. But the dialogue. That's what does it for me.

 

 

[Thor 7,504]

22 minutes ago, Bayesian said:

I haven’t watched the Abyss in years and cannot answer the OP’s question. But with regard to Cameron’s other movies, he is as reliable as they’ve ever come in terms of making entertainment that begs to be seen on the biggest, most advanced screen you can find. And there is a level of command in his direction that simply never fails. He’s even better than Spielberg in that regard, or at least more consistent (although to be fair, Spielberg has directed a lot more films and I’m leaving True Lies out of this.) 

 

Cameron has a singular gift for making the lizard part of my brain squeal in glee. When I was watching Titanic for the first time at age 18, I sure as shit didn’t care about the supposedly bad dialogue or romance—all that mattered to me was that I was being given a front-row seat to watch how this ship went down and managed to take so many people with it, and my greedy eyes could not get enough of it. Every detail was precious. (I loved from the very first time, for example, the details you see in the electrical room just before the lights go out throughout the ship—it’s a scene that lasts, what, maybe 6-7 seconds? And yet it’s seared into my brain. I’ll bet you anything Cameron spent relatively as much to make that set look real as he did for the promenade decks or what-have-you, which get a lot more screen time. But they’re all equally important. No detail too small. 

 

In Avatar, you think I cared about the basic plot? Fuck the plot. I’m being presented with the first truly realistic otherworldly environment in god knows how long, with actually plausible vehicles and tech for once, and on top of all that, I’m being given a grand tour this world, being shown how truly scary it would be when a really big tree comes down on top of you, or what it would be like to fall to the ground from two miles up or how it might feel to be nearly killed by some terrifying jaguar-like creature. You can have your precious plot.
 

In so many movies (looking at you, MCU, but certainly not just you), I watch at a distance, never actually buying what the filmmakers are selling because the premise is never really believable. But Cameron, he makes movies that you believe could really happen (or actually did happen, in one case). He takes you places and leaves you there, even after the movie has long left the theater.

 

I cannot wait for the next Avatar. 

Great post!

[bruce marshall 1,315]

The films I watch more than once, tend to be the ones that sweep me along with the story.

Thats why FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is my favorite Bond film even though others have more pure excitement i.e. GOLDFINGER.

TITANIC certainly sweeps the viewer onto that ship. We feel part of the actual voyage.

The only thing that keeps it from being a masterpiece, as oppossed to a great film< is the silly, cliched bit with Zane stalking DiCaprio. That just didn't belong in THIS film.*

Otherwise, its pretty great!

 

 

* the original version of the scene was twice as long! horrid.

 

 

 

I didn't know he was sued by Roger Dean!

Not the first time he's been accused of theft!

[A24 4,333]

32 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

I didn't know he was sued by Roger Dean!

Not the first time he's been accused of theft!

 

“Good artists borrow, great artists steal.” - Pablo Picasso

 

 

46 minutes ago, blondheim said:

... the dialogue. That's what does it for me.

 

And yet you're a Star Wars fan?

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

4 hours ago, Bayesian said:

In Avatar, you think I cared about the basic plot? Fuck the plot.

 

4 hours ago, Bayesian said:

You can have your precious plot.

 

Mate, the plot, whatever you think of it, is what pulls the whole thing together. Even Cameron would be the first to tell you that the technology and effects exist to service the plot and character. The plot is exceptionally important.

 

You can enjoy the visuals all you wish, they're vitally important, of course.  But I think plot and character play a much bigger role in enveloping you in the world of Pandora (or Titanic) than perhaps you are giving it them credit for. Avatar isn’t a nature documentary after all (though that would admittedly be cool).

 

On 6/10/2021 at 10:21 AM, Thor said:

If stories were the be-all, end-all aspect of filmmaking, people would be reading books instead.

 

I highly recommend it.

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

40 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Avatar isn’t a nature documentary after all

 

This.

 

We make way too much of "world-building" in our contemporary franchises - moreso than the filmmakers themselves make of it. In none of the major franchises that take place in fictional, imaginative settings (so Star Wars, Middle Earth, Harry Potter, parts of the MCU) does the plot ever gets paused outright in favour of exploring the world of the film. There is no, for instance, an interlude in any of the Star Wars films where the story halts and we get mockumentary footage of Tatooine; at no point are Frodo or Bilbo getting a guided tour around Rivendell; and, likewise, at no point whatsoever does Cameron just freely explores Pandora. Its explored only insofar as its important to the plot.

[Thor 7,504]

27 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

You can enjoy the visuals all you wish, they're vitally important, of course.  But I think plot and character play a much bigger role in enveloping you in the world of Pandora (or Titanic) than perhaps you are giving it them credit for. Avatar isn’t a nature documentary after all (though that would admittedly be cool).

 

No, it's not a documentary, but it's experience-oriented cinema. I think the closest parallell is something akin to a park attraction, as previously mentioned. The plot is there, and it serves a purpose, but it's far from what makes this such a good film. Hollywood, and people weaned on Hollywood films alone, think that story is the be-all, end-all aspect of the artform. Everything is subservient to it. I disagree fundamentally with that. Film is able to do so much more. I'm an avid believer in the old mantra "form is content". This is most obvious in non-Hollywood, arthouse fare, but it can happen in Hollywood movies too. Visionary fIlmmakers like Cameron, Spielberg, Scott, Burton et.al. are able to inject moments that are less about story and more about what visuals and sound can do beyond that. Tableaux and such. In these cases, other forms of experience are nurtured than a mere narrative one. 

 

This is actually what I wrote my thesis about, back in 2004.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

26 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

There is no, for instance, and interlude in any of the Star Wars films where the story halts and we get mockumentary footage of Tatooine

 

Exactly.

 

Disney+ actually did something like this recently for different Star Wars planets. They're really cool. And last about five minutes each. It's something you watch once and likely never see again unless it's a screen saver.  They did these little interludes separately because they realise to do something like that would stop a film cold in its tracks.

[A24 4,333]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

This.

 

We make way too much of "world-building" in our contemporary franchises - moreso than the filmmakers themselves make of it. In none of the major franchises that take place in fictional, imaginative settings (so Star Wars, Middle Earth, Harry Potter, parts of the MCU) does the plot ever gets paused outright in favour of exploring the world of the film. There is no, for instance, and interlude in any of the Star Wars films where the story halts and we get mockumentary footage of Tatooine; at no point are Frodo or Bilbo getting a guided tour around Rivendell; and, likewise, at no point whatsoever does Cameron just freely explores Pandora. Its explored only insofar as its important to the plot.

 

In that regard, there's very little difference between movies and books. Both can be either about style, descriptions of worlds, characters, or stories.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

17 minutes ago, Thor said:

I'm an avid believer in "form is content". This is most obvious in non-Hollywood, arthouse fare, but it can happen in Hollywood movies too.

 

I don't disagree with you that film can be more than a strict storytelling medium. Or even that you can tell a story purely through images and sound. Of course you can. You mentioned several directors, but George Lucas is actually the person that's been the highest profile proponent of this. All the other directors you mentioned used technology to push the medium forward, but they still all use their films to tell a plot/character based story.  There may be moments of pure technological wonder, but they're only moments, and ultimately still exist to service the story they're trying to tell. And frankly even Lucas never got around to making the "experimental", non-linear, non story driven films he always talked about. Every movie he's directed has been plot driven.

 

Of course, one day we'll all be able to put on VR gear and explore Pandora and similar worlds to our heart's content without any story at all. And I'll be the first to sign up, I think that's probably the future of cinema. But even then, I think you'll find that what people are really going to want (like with video games) is to participate in a story.

[Thor 7,504]

7 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I don't disagree with you that film can be more than a strict storytelling medium. You mentioned several directors, but George Lucas is actually the person that's been the highest profile proponent of this. All the other directors you mentioned used technology to push the medium forward, but they still all use their films to tell a plot/character based story.  There may be moments of pure technological wonder, but they're only moments, and ultimately still exist to service the story they're trying to tell. And frankly even Lucas never got around to making the "experimental", non-linear, non story driven films he always talked about. Every movie he's directed has been plot driven.

 

My point is not to say that these films don't have a plot, and that plot doesn't have a significance. It's merely that we experience the combination of visuals and sound in many ways; they're not all narrative. If you go to a modern art installation, you try to create meaning out of the combination of sound and visuals that aren't necessarily narrative. It can be more abstract. Being envelopped in a mood, for example.

 

Same applies to film. In a film like BLADE RUNNER, for example (which was one of the examples I used in my thesis), it's just as much about being envelopped in the dystopian, retrofitted universe as it is to experience the story. Both forms of experience are equally valid. Same with AVATAR. You can go into it and gain some appreciation from the Pocahontas storyline, but for me, the most important thing was to feel, touch, absorb and enter the world he created. I couldn't care less about the story, really.

 

So this form of experience doesn't only have to be limited to abstract, non-narrative arthouse films like those of Godard et.al.. It can be experienced in a good ol' Hollywood movie too -- jammed into a story, or using the story merely as an "entrance fee".

[Chen G. 3,949]

9 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

There may be moments of pure technological wonder, but they're only moments, and ultimately still exist to service the story they're trying to tell.

 

I mean, there is a difference between telling a story and taking the time to appreciate the decor, so to speak; and saying that the story itself isn't important or is playing second fiddle to the visuals. Cameron's Titanic is actually a great example of a director taking his time to let you really drink in the visuals: that shot of the Titanic from helm to stern is *chef's kiss* and is the kind of thing we don't really get anymore. That doesn't make Titanic any less of a classic narrative film.

 

9 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

And frankly even Lucas never got around to making the "experimental", non-linear, non story driven films he always talked about. Every movie he's directed has been plot driven.

 

He was never going to. That whole "experimental film" rhetoric of Lucas is absolute balderdash.

 

https://entertainment.time.com/2012/01/18/george-lucas-wants-to-retire-and-make-art-films-sure-he-does/

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

Perhaps he's made several, but he's too afraid of critics like Chen to show them to anybody.