Tash:

(“Did you know they only made HALF a boat, and then they – oh. You did.”)

The thing about James Cameron is that, no matter what you’re opinions of his films are, he is a man who absolutely knows what he is doing. Not only is he almost leaking with awards from a mind-bending number of directions, he’s a pioneer of technology, a passionate devotee of film in all its guises and the man who decided Arnold Schwarzenegger should get his terminating on. He has quite literally changed the world of film-making, will go down in history as the man who thought outside the 2D square and no amount of pouting about how the Blue People Were Annoying will change that.

Kayleigh:

(Smurfs without the comedy. What?)

You’re wrong. The thing about James Cameron is that technology is to him what alcohol is to an alcoholic. Most people can enjoy a glass of wine with their evening meal and then put the bottle away afterwards. James, on the other hand, could quite happily drink himself to death. Do his films need a plotline? Of course not. Why? Because they have “AMAZING” cinematography and “AMAZING” visuals. And they keep on having them forever and ever, until your eyes want to throw up. There’s only so much vapid prettiness hardened cinemagoers can take, Cameron. This is why most people like to hire someone to, ooh, I dunno, write a decent script to go alongside them, in case we suddenly wake up from our Avatar-induced stupor and realise that, yes, it IS just Pocahontas. In space. With a paraplegic. Well done you.

Tash:

Yes, yes, no-one is saying that James Cameron is the world’s most brilliant storyteller, but then no-one ever has a go at Mike Leigh for not including ace fight scenes, do they? I don’t know why we utterly panic when a film does well if the story is somewhat lacking – you do know that film is a visual medium as well as a platform for a narrative, right? There will always be brilliant writers, we will never run out of tales or of interesting characters, but not every film has to be and do everything. A few films have to be transitional, and I think that films like Avatar (and Tron: Legacy, another two hours of eye-porn) earn their makers place in the history books for transforming the way in which we experience film. Of course Avatar won’t be remembered for its characters, but actually, that’s not the point.

Kayleigh:

Oh goodness, you’re right. How stupid of me. It’s like when a person is utterly stunning but, when you talk to them, you find that they’re utterly dead inside. Only shallow, stupid individuals will marry these beautiful creatures.. Why? Looks aren’t everything. How many times has that been drummed into us over the years? Beauty for beauty’s sake alone is a high art form; perhaps it would work in something shorter than Avatar but, as it is, 162 minutes is far too long. That’s like being told to stand in front of a Da Vinci for three days straight and NOT go insane. This isn’t panicking so much as stating the obvious; when I go to a film, I expect all of my senses to be stimulated. Why should I drop my high standards just because something looks nice? By that account, I should be in love with Jude Law. Your argument, on the other hand, expects us to go: “ooh, George Lucas. Look how pretty the new Star Warstrilogy is. It’s just so nice and special-effecty… it MUST be a good movie.” No. NO! That’s not how it works. This is the world of film criticism, not lunch with The Plastics.

Tash:

I’m not saying looks are everything, what I’m saying is that they are SOMETHING. It’s all very well to be a snob about ‘intellectual’ film-making, but the point is that the original Star Wars only existed because George Lucas was determined to push the boundaries of what had been done with visuals before. We don’t hate his new horrendous Jar-Jar-additions because they are shiny, we hate them because they’re no longer the films we grew up with and loved fiercely. I go back to Tron: Legacy – the 80s Tron was laughably dreadful, because we weren’t developed enough in terms of visuals to do the concept justice. Now that we can, why not celebrate the fact with sumptuous (and freaking DIFFICULT TO MAKE, lest we forget) special effects? You think Inception would have been even a 100th as interesting without the mind-bending visuals? Visuals and story work on the same team – it’s the evolution of film-making. I think it’s small-minded to scoff at genuine leaps in innovation, just because they’re not the leaps you care about.

Kayleigh:

I wouldn’t call it snobbish to ask for the pair to be united; a good story just seems like an intrinsic element of any film. It doesn’t have to be high-brow, simply engaging. Mean Girls is an example of a good story minus the effects. Or, for a case of the pair working hand in hand, Jurassic Park is absolutely amazing. It had a good plot AND dinosaurs. DINOSAURS! Special effects are pretty special and, in the right hands, they can really add something to a film. Inception is a good example of this, you’re absolutely right. I wasn’t advocating that we simply do away with special effects altogether (that’d be overwhelmingly stupid of me!), I was just saying that we should look for more than just good looks. If a film has a poor story, it usually does badly; would Sex & The City 2 , had it been pimped up with cool Avatar stylings, been nominated for an Oscar? Who knows. I don’t know. If the evolution of film making is literally just going to be bigger and prettier visuals with no need for character development and, at the very least, a decent script, then maybe I’ll stay here in my cave with Dino.

Tash:

Nah, of course they need to work together – all I’m saying is that evolution is a slow process. We might have to accept that in order to aspire to brilliant films with visuals AND a heart-stompingly brilliant tale, we might need a few meanderings in the CGI wilderness first. James Cameron is all about the process of film-making, I’m not sure it’s ever really been about the story for him. He’s a man of the EYES; of Terminator, Of Aliens, and actually seems a lot more interested in his bloomin Titanic documentaries than anything else (seeing as he’s made three of them, soggy Leo notwithstanding). I think we need not fear for the future of film where he is concerned – after all, there’s a reason that his ex-wife’s The Hurt Locker beat him to Best Picture. People will always, always put story first, tis in our nature as cute little skin-covered communicators, in my opinion Cameron just wants to make the stuff surrounding the story as exciting as possible. I’m glad there’s someone trailblazing the colours n that. Even if it does mean we’re stuck with ridiculous Pocahontus monsters.

Kayleigh:

AHA! So you do think they’re ridiculous!

Tash:

Sadly there aren’t enough dimensions in the world to make them otherwise.

Do you have an opinion to add? Bloody well make it exist below: