avatar posterWhile stuck on the rain soaked 405 an hour ago, a breaking news story popped into my iPhone inbox: 'Avatar' is now the 'king of the worldwide box office'. It took just over a month to 'sink' that other mammoth box office champ 'Titanic'; both films, of course, conceived of and realized by James Cameron. Wow, good day for him. Yes, that is an understatement (and no, I don't want to think what stratosphere his ego now resides in). It got me thinking though, as I navigated around inexperienced rain drivers, what really propelled these two films to the pinnacle of mass consumption. Was it simply the awe-inspiring 3-D of Avatar and CGI of Titanic. The obvious answer would be yes, those elements were certainly instrumental to the initial draw of the films. But what if those pioneering hi-tech elements were intrinsic to a more primal reaction shared by the masses? What if those technically advanced films just made people feel more?
The stories, as we all know, are recycled: derivatives of 'Romeo and Juliet', 'David and Goliath', man against nature, man against machine; we've all seen the mash-up of the Avatar voiceover on the Pocahontas trailer. Avatar and Titanic couldn't be more basic in their character arc types and narratives. But what moved so many millions of people to go to the theatre and then go again, was that those tried and true love stories were presented in an immersive, yet awe inspiring fashion that compelled our complex neuro web to make us feel something new. In both cases we had NEVER seen that type of spectacle before in our lives.  Each movie may have told only a simple, universal love story, but it was nestled within a very un-simple, foreign yet believably tangible landscape. Hmmm. As human beings, are we becoming so desensitized to filmed entertainment that we need huge advances in technology to have the story affect our primal center for emotion? Do we need tech to feel more human?
I read a fascinating article in Wired the other day (what else is new) about a new company in San Diego called MindSign Neuromarketing. It uses brain scans to pin point when the amydala (the center for primal emotions and emotionally based memories) and other key regions of the brain activate in response to viewings of movies and trailers (apparently Jerry Bruckheimer used this fMRI technique to fine tune his last Pirates of the Caribbean trailer).  As I do quite a bit of neuro-research for different projects that I'm working on, I found this fascinating, yet very expected.  If a studio can craft a trailer that creates peak experiences in your emotional center, whether you want it to or not, they have you hooked. With regards to the draw of Avatar, mapping neuro responses to theatrical stimuli is the other side of the coin. What patterns will be discovered? What level of stimuli will we need to get our next 'hit'?
This topic is obviously a huge one and has far reaching ramifications, definitely beyond simple consumption of movies. The advent of Twitter and Facebook made us feel more connected; when someone adds you as a friend or replies to a tweet, the pleasure center of the brain activates (the folks at Twitter know this or why would they have put an exclamation mark after their email alert that someone new is following you!). But now these social media platforms are part of the more traditional landscape and in becoming part of the norm, what is them the future technology that will, for lack of a better phrase, give us our new hit of happy? It also brings forth something that I struggle with as a fledgling sci fi writer. The science and the fiction is important and the delicately constructed web that I weave to create my unique world is paramount to the genre, but the story has to be elevated by the it, not detracted (which is why I think most scifi films do poorly at the box office, District 9 being an exception for the obvious reason in that it connected on an emotional level).
I have so many more thoughts on these nebulous issues as I delve into what the future means to me and the technology I think that will define it, but I have to end this post for now.  I would love to hear your thoughts. In the mean time, I'm going to try to remember that a simple story, one that connects on a human level with the masses, is not something to discount...it just has to find it's way through our overloaded neural pathways and into our well-protected hearts.

  • Share
  • Categories: Blog Posts
When asked people who saw 'Avatar' what made them like it soo much, the answer is always the effects and some the 3D... Nothing about the gripping story, or the amazing actors. Just the effects. Which is why I haven't watched it. Playing too many video games and watching too many cartoons, kinda desensitized me to the awesomeness of watching it on the big screen. To me what makes a great movie is the story and the believability of the actors. A genuinely fresh and creative plot doesn't hurt either.

As much as I deny the mushiness within, I loved 'Pride & Prejudice', 'Juno', 'Elizabeth' and so on... Those grab my heart. If they were CGI, they would lack the *human connection, and subsitute it with awe over the amazing CGI. I do think Sci-Fi, Action and horror movies loaded with CGI have there place, and should be recognized for the supperb CGI creators. The actors only source of recognition is their voice, how well they convey the emotion their avatar is showing. It's a tough thing to do, and should be recognized also... I suppose. But, with out seeing the glimmer in the actors eye, the emotion on their face, the body language.... I feel no emotional connection.

*Pseudo-disclaimer: For the record, I have teared up a bit while playing a Final Fantasy game, but could attribute it to lack of sleep, very moving music and gripping story... ;)
:):):)
Great points Jeff and I too love movies like Pride and Prejudice- I can watch them over and over again, so I don't discount their worth as emotional resonators, but I'm just trying to get to the heart of why big movies like Avatar and Titanic with such simple stories are having such massive reach and take on a life of their own...
I cried when I watched Armegeddon, there I admit it...don't judge me it was a moving film... that Michael Bay knows how to tug at the ol' heart strings.
new to your blog (actually got linked over from danny at TRS). Very interesting topic. It reminded me of a thought I have been struggling with ever since I grew the brain cells to think it; is there any such thing as free will or am I controlled by the need and desire to continually receive these "hits of happy" as you referred to them. Even when I do things that would be counter intuitive to my benefit for the sake of others, I constantly struggle with the thought of am I really doing this for the greater good, or am I doing this for myself.
I find the concept of boiling down everyday activities to concepts of neural anatomy and function very intriguing, but then again I am a huge geek...

Also, really enjoyed your writing style and noticed you mentioned you're a sci fi writer? What have you published? I would be interested in reading it/them (?)
Thanks Mehdi for checking out my blog! Interesting thought about what really defines free will- Seth Godin posted something similar about that this morning on his blog.  I don't have any scifi fiction posted- I have a few projects in the works but they are scripted series and still in the development/pre-production phase.  Will try to write more posts with a scifi. 'futurist' bent, and not just a new media one in the future!
Wow, it's been a long time since I've posted here!  It's good to be back.  ^_^

I've definitely found the Avatar phenomenon an interesting one.  I definitely relate to Jeff in a lot of ways, in that a movie (and as he points out, games as well) with genuinely sympathetic characters is virtually always more enjoyable and memorable that one that's a paragon of CGI.  Now that's something that's particular to story-telling, but that I don't think it entirely applies to art in general.

Some art, though it has no real human aspect, can be beautiful enough to be emotionally moving whether it's a certain chord progression or especially striking image.  I think that's a good way to describe Avatar.  It wasn't necessarily the story that was told or the relateability of the characters - it was the beauty of the world that had been created.  That was my - and I believe many people's - response to it.  As a film, it was good.  As a visual experience, it was amazing.
— or sign up for an account.
  • Read earlier discussion
  • View all
  • 7 Responses