Thoughts on "Avatar"

Let me start off by saying that I admire James Cameron for making monumental films; for enriching popular culture; for his bang-on populist instincts; and for his ability to create iconography, the latter being one of the hardest things to pull off.

His latest film, the behemoth that is "Avatar", is the cinema equivalent of the moon landing, at least from a technical standpoint.

Yes, it's a game-changer, but maybe the worst kind. The just-because-you-can-doesn't-mean-you-should kind, like the hydrogen bomb.

But I tend to think that fledgling filmmakers should be a little cheesed off at the King of the World for creating a demand for NASA-budget 3D blockbusters. Filmgoers have become spoilt and fickle, and, as always, the film industry is too much of a closed shop. Megabusters like "Avatar" are only going to make it harder for emerging filmmakers to find money for a low budget, 2D film set on earth, even if the proposed film is bent to fit a fashionable genre. If a fledgling filmmaker happens to find the money for their film, cultivating an audience large enough to deliver a decent return on investment is an even harder challenge.

James Cameron has said that high grossing blockbusters like "Avatar" actually make it easier as studios have more money to play with and filmmakers have better tools with which to tell their stories and make an impact.

Problem is, the studios haven't been interested in nurturing talent since the late 1970s, early 1980s. As a result of films like "Avatar" conditioning most of the world to develop a preference for such fare, it's going to fall to the studio system to re-assume the role of nurturer, but until filmmakers like Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas, and Jackson no longer feel a need to play the sophmoric -- and resource-draining -- game of one-upmanship, I just don't see it happening.

To top a technical innovator like Cameron requires that one be a greater innovator, and that level of technical innovation requires money. Lots of money.

Just ask NASA.