comment #1

Eloi Manning says ...

I hope they're holding some stuff back that we haven't yet glimpsed in any of the trailers. My worry is that the whole world of Pandora that was supposed to be so awe-inspiring kind of looks a bit boring after having seen a few of the trailers. Like a forest with a few colorful plants. Hopefully there are entire sequences that they've not shown at all in any of the promo reels.

comment #2

Rich S. says ...

Another two-and-a-half hour blockbuster? Are there ANY editors left in Hollywood any more?

I know, I know. No good movie is too long. No bad movie is too short. But consider:

Star Wars: 121 minutes

Raiders: 115 minutes

Alien: 116 minutes

Terminator: 108 minutes

And so on. Blockbuster directors used to know how to direct a tight, exciting film. I guess that's just not the case any more.

comment #3

coxcable says ...

The director hasn't disappointed yet, but a small part of me would like to see Avatar fall on its face just because Cameron is such a stubborn angry fireball creative type that it would push him to make the next one ("Battle Angel"?) a straight up classic.

One thing is for sure... he doesn't need to get into the sappy Oscar movie business (like Peter Jackson has been). Cameron's talent is full throttle action... and he should stick with that.

comment #4

fattyhadaparty says ...

Why are you so surprised? This is the exact same kind of suck job that Leslie Stahl did on George Lucas about a month before PHANTOM MENACE came out. Morley Safer is not going to sandbag a fellow Canadian on national television.

"James, there's a rumor going around that your new $500 million dollar film really sucks. Is that true?"

"I think that's a fair question, Morley."

The demographic that watches 60 MINUTES is the same demographic that watches just about every program on CBS: ancient. Do you really think Ma and Pa Kettle really give a crap about some specious fanboy controversy fomented by the 600 who rule the entertainment websites?

comment #5

Jack South P.I. says ...

After watching the 60 Minutes piece, I'm more excited about seeing the movie than before. I finally got to see some footage that lingered for more than a second (like in the trailer). What I saw looked better, more beautiful, and more real. The real test is coming, of course.

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

"Morley Safer is not going to sandbag a fellow Canadian on national television."

For some reason that's one of the funnier things I've ever read, well done.

Also I think THE DARK KNIGHT has made it seem like 2.5 hour films can still be monster hits, never mind that one had a built in fan-base and I think we all agree it could have been 30-40 minutes shorter.

comment #7

mattn says ...

Seconded on the length of films; there's just no need for a well-told film to be over 2 hours. Here's a few more well-edited shorter films:

Lawrence of Arabia: 216 min
Gone with the Wind: 238 min
Bridge on the River Kwai: 161 min
Godfather: 175 min
2001: 141 min
Reds: 194 min

comment #8

Telemachos says ...

Jeff, they did briefly talk about how ultimately the key thing is a good story and good characters... you're right, though, that the whole thing was basically a fluff piece.

comment #9

Alex says ...

Wells,

Did you catch the footage in 3D on Avatar Day? This was what sold me on the flick... before that, I was 100% against the blu people.

comment #10

Fortunesfool says ...

In the introduction, he calls 'Titanic' the 'most profitable film ever made', which is far, far from the truth. With that level of journalism, how was this going to anything other than a movie trailer.

We live in a time where JJ Abrams is mentioned as the new Spielberg, and Star Trek is one of the 'best' blockbusters of the year. Avatar is gonna be a serious wake-up call to mediocre film-making. Cameron forgot to lock up when he left the zoo and its time for the monkey's to get back in their place.

comment #11

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Which...you know, is certainly possible. I'd feel a lot better about this thing if it weren't for those awful cougar noses on the Na'vi."

What was that you were saying about transcendent stories and themes? ;-)

And yeah, that was some seriously selective blockbuster running time citing, Rich. Without even looking, I know damn well the vast majority of Cameron's films run well over 2 hours. Terminator is a rare exception to that rule, and as a reference point it's certainly not representative of his work at large in that specific respect.

comment #12

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

It's true that it depends how you define "profitable" (I'd certainly argue that profit rate is a much better indicator than net profit), but even then...we're talking about a movie that has made nearly $2 billion worldwide.

That's pretty damn profitable regardless of how you want to measure it.

comment #13

Mr. Peel says ...

I caught the 'profitable' thing but I also noticed that when they referenced Roger Corman and showed footage of him they also ran a shot of the fake Miracle Pictures logo from HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD. Does 60 Minutes think that Corman's company is in fact Miracle Pictures?

comment #14

Jonathan Spuij says ...

Love the Piranha 2 bit.

comment #15

Rich S. says ...

Oh, for the love of Pete. If you guys can't tell the difference between David Lean and Stanley Kubrick and James Cameron and George Lucas, I don't know what to tell you.

My point is that in the late 70s and early 80s, you had a bunch of guys that could pump out a pulp blockbuster in around two hours or less that felt properly "epic," but didn't throw in every stupid subplot that struck the filmmaker's fancy.

Somewhere, these guys started to get delusions of grandeur that comic book movies and sci-fi melodramas were "high art" and, accordingly, had to be of epic length. I'm thinking that happened somewhere around the Lord of the Rings films, but whatever. Bottom line, these movies are not improved by being this long. Even Dark Knight could have easily lost 20 minutes.

Yes, Cameron's films usually run longer than two hours, but that's not always a good thing. The Abyss (138 min) and True Lies (141 min) would have easily benefited from a trim. In my opinion, only Aliens (137 min) and Terminator 2 (137 min) earned their extended running times. Even then, none of those movies was 150 minutes. (I'm not counting Titanic (194 min) because it wasn't a sci-fi blockbuster, but I could have lost at least half an hour itself.)

comment #16

corey3rd says ...

no mention of how his entire movie looks like it was cribbed from Roger Dean prog rock covers of the 70s?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RSPNz6t-gg

comment #17

Ronald McFirbank says ...

It looks like Miyazaki's Laputa, too. "Cameron 'borrows' blatantly" was pretty well established by Ellison v. Carolco, Cameron et al. 25 years ago.

Jeff can hope this will be Cameron's Phantom Menace, and it may yet be, but I'd bet on him delivering the pulpy emotional goods.

comment #18

Ronald McFirbank says ...

Actually, Rich S., The Abyss WAS the cutdown version, and it's better in the longer one because it has a point. (The point of The Day the Earth Stood Still, to be precise.)

I agree with you that in general, action movies are a half hour too long and keep battering you well past the point of satiety these days, but Cameron is far from the worst abuser of running time. I'd sit through an extra two hours of Aliens before I'd sit through another minute of Pirates of the Caribbean, let's put it that way.

comment #19

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Sorry about that, Rich. I didn't really catch your point on your first post here. Having said that, I'm still not sure I entirely catch your point, as I consider TDK and the LotR series to be high watermarks for the modern blockbuster.

But I do agree with a lot of what you said in your follow-up. I think the best way to explain the longer-running times on blockbusters (if indeed it is a trend, and I suppose it might be) is that a lot of the modern tentpoles sort of hedge their bets with both arthouse and geek-driven characters/subplots to appeal to the widest possible audience -- Titanic of course being a prime example of this.

I think in the past, there was perhaps a little less pretension (and more tightness) in a movie like Jaws because it wasn't simultaneously trying to be Heaven's Gate.

Whether or not this is a good thing is pretty hard for me to generalize about. I think it truly depends on the specific film being discussed.

comment #20

Rich S. says ...

Ronald, I actually would have jettisoned the entire alien subplot in The Abyss and stuck with the Michael Biehn cabin fever plot. But I guess then we wouldn't have had the whole water tentacle thing.

The Pirates films are my poster children for this gripe. At 100 minutes each, I think they would be considered pulp classics (and would have made a lot more money than they did). As they now stand, they are kind of bloated messes, although charming bloated messes.

comment #21

Movie Watcher says ...

Yes that was a fluff piece on 60 minutes, I'll agree with that. When I saw the forest scenes, I kept thinking about Star Wars, the Phantom Menace. I'd expect it to be over 2 hours, he has to once again show how a great, visionary director he is.
The 'HMFIC' cap was funny. I woder how many people in Hollywood chuckled when they say that.

comment #22

Rich S. says ...

CK, I think the key, to be honest, is the budgetary constraint put on a young, hungry filmmaker, which forces him to be lean and mean. Once those are removed, the sky's apparently the limit.

If you've ever read Jaws, you know there's a whole Mrs. Brody/Hooper adultery subplot the movie wisely ditched entirely. I'd love to be able to say that today's Steven Spielberg (or the equivalent) would have sense enough not to include it, but I don't know. It would make the film more "adult," and hence, more "artistic."

comment #23

Movie Watcher says ...

I meant "saw', not say.

comment #24

shermy says ...

I think the key, to be honest, is the budgetary constraint put on a young, hungry filmmaker, which forces him to be lean and mean. Once those are removed, the sky's apparently the limit.

It's now the limit for more than just the director, though. Studios worry less about excessive lengths, since they know that theaters can simply add more screens and showtimes. This was underscored last July, when The Dark Knight was treated like an early May release.

Audiences have also become more willing to sit through a bloated blockbuster. It's not unusual for kids to closely follow a movie's development for over a year or two online. So by the time it's released, they're more than happy to see a film that's as long as possible. Ditto for when the (even longer) director's cut appears.

The latter brings us back to the director, who knows he doesn't really have to worry too much about editing the film anymore. It's a process that can now be drawn out until the dvd or even the inevitable double-dip.

comment #25

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Your point's well-taken, Rich. And I know they're pretty popular on these boards for whatever reason, but I'm totally with you guys in the PotC running-time abuse camp.

I am one of the biggest JD supporters around, but do we really need to see 10 of his goofy-ass reaction shots each minute? They really do add nothing to the film, that's the kind of cut that an experienced editor would be trimming his first or second run-through.

Those shots really do turn Python-esque after awhile, and not in a good way. They also probably accountable for at least 5 absolutely useless minutes to the final cut.

comment #26

Ronald McFirbank says ...

More movies need to be like Star Trek. You can tell from the deleted scenes that there's a whole nother movie that they cut out of this one. Eventually it will come out on DVD, I'm sure, but in the meantime, we got an ass-kicking fast 110 minute movie in theaters that left you looking forward to more. Well, me, anyway.

comment #27

Abbey Normal says ...

Oh, c'mon. This isn't a "blow job" because the piece isn't even about the actual quality of Avatar, or initial reactions to it. It's about the larger endeavor; the path Cameron's taken to this point and what the movie represents in terms of 3-D's possible resurgence. It's obvious you already have your knives out for this thing, or you're at least hoping this storyline you're promoting--"Ferngully!"--will stick. The 60 Minutes piece doesn't expressly help your efforts, so it's "wafer-thin."

But whatever. On another note, does the un-goateed Cameron not have a little Paul McCartney jowl thing happening? I kept expecting him to break out in a chorus of "Yesterday" when he was talking about Pirahna 2....

comment #28

Terry McCarty says ...

Rich S. wrote:
Another two-and-a-half hour blockbuster? Are there ANY editors left in Hollywood any more?

Blockbuster action aside, when Judd Apatow and Richard Curtis feel they can't cut down their masterworks (saw PIRATE RADIO yesterday and liked most of it--but even the US version was overlong), then Rich's question becomes more valid than ever.

comment #29

Sams says ...

Nothing that I've seen from the trailers has led me to expect much from this movie. Initially, some scenes looked stunning but the story and dialogue seemed corny, predictable ,and one dimensional. When the action went into high gear it looked like standard animation. I didn't think there was anything about the Navi or their world that tops the other CGI-laden films this past summer.

comment #30

erniesouchak says ...

Whenever "60 Minutes" comes to Hollywood, that's the type of piece they do. Where does the hard-news instinct go? Why don't they expose the non-disclosure agreements that shape every celebrity profile?

comment #31

Tristan Eldritch2 says ...

I think the fun thing about Avatar is that no one really knows how the finished product is going to pan out. The history of this movie has been so dramatic - insane hype, inlated claims, savage mockery, Downfall parodies, ect. A studio has gambled on an insane budget, a major director has pretty much gambled his reputation and possibly his future on this - and we still don't know whether we're going to get a mind-blowing piece of twenty-first century escapism, or a very watery damp squib. Because of its budget and its hype, Avatar is an all or nothing proposition - like a heavy weight championship bout. That element of drama is fun, even if the picture itself crashes and burns.

comment #32

THE MovieBob says ...

Ronald-
"More movies need to be like Star Trek."

Plenty of movies are like "Star Trek" already - badly written franchise cash-ins reworked and dumbed-down for attention-deficient 13 year-olds.

comment #33

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I knew that was coming (re: comment #32).

I've read a lot on the internet -- presumably where most of these Trekkers/Trekkies virtually reside, natch -- about how the new Star Trek was dumbed-down for a mass audience. That's funny, because I thought it was a remarkably fun movie.

Admittedly, the script (which I think is the weakest part) kind of sucks most of the science out of the fiction. But if you just take it for what it aims to be -- i.e. an old-skool throwback to the serial space adventures -- and not your standard philosophy-driven Trek picture, per se, the picture really is a slam dunk.

comment #34

michael says ...

I keep remembering what Cameron said in his intro to the footage on Avatar day and that was that the stuff we were seeing was from the first half of the film. I know we've seen bits and pieces of battle stuff that's probably from the end, but I still believe that there is more to the film than just the 3 1/2 minute trailer and the footage that I saw on Avatar day. I could be wrong, but I just think there's going to be more to this film than "Dances with Smurfs". I think Cameron could just dish out all kinds of spoilers about it, but in the end, he knows that most of us are going to go and see it just to SEE it and see the spectacle. Of all the things Cameron is, dumb is not among them and I think he knows what's being said and all the jokes being made, but I think he's going to let the film speak for itself. And after Terminator, Aliens, T2, True Lies, and The Abyss, I'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt and not snark the man to death over a total of 15 minutes of footage taken out of context. Maybe that's just me and maybe when Dec 18th comes, i'll be proven wrong, but i'm not going to trash the film until I see it. I remember people doing that 12 years ago, talking about how big of a disaster Titanic was going to be and how it would ruin his career and destroy the studio and how it sucked and people wouldn't buy into fake CG people on a doomed boat where we all knew the ending....and then the movie came out and critics were eating crow for several months. Just saying. Don't count him out yet.

comment #35

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

We park our cars in the same garage, michael.

For the people who aren't anticipating this, I have to ask: what makes you not trust Cameron? The dude's hit to flop ratio is incredible...and I'm not even talking box-office.

I mean, I know Titanic is an incredibly divisive film, and True Lies is perhaps only merely a great blockbuster (as opposed to being a great movie), but other than that his filmography speaks for itself (cue dumbass DZ at any moment to point out Pirahna for the billionth time).

Hey may not be quite up to the legendary Leone/Kubrick/Lean/Kurosawa consistency standards, but his work across the board is -- at the very least -- extremely solid.

comment #36

twicks says ...

I'd say Cameron's 10-year or so hiatus from making movies is the primary cause for concern.

Who's taken that much time off (I know he made that diving documentary) and come back as strong as ever?

comment #37

DeeZee says ...

"Last night's 60 Minutes piece on James Cameron and Avatar was a wafer-thin blow job."

Jim wouldn't have it any other way. I also like that he conveniently forgot about the Ellison thing when he talked about Terminator.

And now the budget's $400 million? Christ, even if has a good opening, there's no way it can make its money back. What the hell's Murdoch smoking?

Also, I know I'm sounding like Jeff here, but do you really want to discuss a "cutting-edge" film with an octogenarian-like reporter, when you're trying to reach a younger demo? I mean, shouldn't this segment be on MTV or something?

shermy: I think the only reason audiences like longer running times is because of insane ticket prices. But the final product still has to be entertaining enough to justify that kind of length.

Kane: "For the people who aren't anticipating this, I have to ask: what makes you not trust Cameron? "

The fact that he hasn't done anything in a while, and seems to be behind the times, to boot?

"(cue dumbass DZ at any moment to point out Pirahna for the billionth time)."

You forgot Dark Angel.

comment #38

Fortunesfool says ...

MovieBob (32) couldn't agree with you more.

comment #39

RSBrown says ...

Could you possibly mean..."Empty Cameron = Safer boat"? Hyuk, hyuk.

comment #40

bents75 says ...

"But if you just take it for what it aims to be -- i.e. an old-skool throwback to the serial space adventures -- and not your standard philosophy-driven Trek picture, per se, the picture really is a slam dunk."

I concur Citizen. I find the snooty trekkie attitude that it's such an insulting picture to be a repeatedly silly. Star Trek was never fucking Shakespeare - it was generally respectable and usually smart, but given the sheer amount of content that was produced over the decades and huge variety of people involved, a lot of it was absolute crap. I say this as someone who has probably seen a good 75-80% of what was produced in terms of tv and films.

If it was never broken and never needed to be fixed, then it wouldn't have died off so quietly in the end. People got sick of it and they didn't give a shit any more - clearly including many of the faithful or else it wouldn't have been relegated to relying on Scott Bakula to save it...as if that was ever going to happen.

The new movie may not be the most ideal incarnation but it brought the property back from the dead and gave it new lease on life for the forseeable future and anyone who can't give it credit for that should have their nerd license revoked. Abrams directed the shit out of that movie with never a dull moment, which is extremely contrary to the worst in Star Trek (i.e. at least half of it) which was dull moment after dull moment.

comment #41

Ronald McFirbank says ...

"Who's taken that much time off (I know he made that diving documentary) and come back as strong as ever?"

Bunuel? And hey, A Passage to India is pretty damn good, even if it's not Lawrence (but neither is Zhivago or Ryan's Daughter).

Anyway, back to Star Trek, bents has it right. If you take Star Trek (the whole thing) waaaaaaay too fucking seriously, then Abrams-Trek is blasphemy, and you can only gnash your teeth and mourn that we didn't have more ST:TNG of people sitting around tables yakking oh so seriously and Deanna Troi feeling empathy and Fat Bearded Guy looking pleased with himself for having a career in spite of a manifest lack of anything resembling talent or interest. Honestly, it's like watching my orthodontist conquer the galaxy.

If, on the other hand, you think that the main point of Star Trek all along was the comic interplay of Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley as they amused themselves overdoing it, then Abrams-Trek is a load of fun and gets Star Trek back to its core principles, by which I mean, Kirk having fist fights with aliens on big rocks.

Abrams-Trek kicks ass, and I can't wait to watch Chris Pine get fat and bald over ten more of them.

comment #42

Edwardo72 says ...

Favourite comment of the piece was OJ Simpson as the terminator, the man who went on to murder his wife!

Am willing to give Avatar a pop, and am hoping the 3D thing gives me a psychotropic head spin, what, with all those whirling plants, and vibrant flapping birds. All very well for it being a game changer but when will the next movie be coming out that pushes the technology?

comment #43

markj says ...

Have to laugh at people comparing Cameron to JJ Abrams.

MI:3 and Star Trek, or The Terminator and Aliens?
Hmm, tough call.

comment #44

bents75 says ...

Where did anyone directly compare Cameron to Abrams?

It seemed like two different discussions to me. I was defending Star Trek, but I think MI:3 is a steaming pile of shit. So there's that...

I attended the Avatar day preview, or whatever it was called, and I was sold there. I can't think of a more fun way of spending 15 bucks than seeing 2 1/2's hours of this level of 3D. I couldn't really care less what the context is. It was like sci-fi porn.

comment #45

Ronald McFirbank says ...

I expected Abrams' Trek to look like TV, and in some ways it's a little rushed and weightless. Still, weightless beats ponderous, which has been the default state of Star Trek movies.

MI:2 was enough to end any interest in future Mission Impossible movies. Hell, MI:1 almost was.