The marketing tide is swelling, and shortly will be swamping over us like an entertainment tsunami, for James Cameron's new film, Avatar. 

Like a lot of science fiction movies--even some really bad ones--it looks really cool.  And I must admit that I have yet to watch a James Cameron movie that I didn't enjoy.  Are they good movies, quality movies, movies that will stand the test of time and go down in history with Citizen Kane or Casablanca or Singin' in the Rain or whatever?  Probably not.  But then, I'm not a judge of that stuff; I just look at the enjoyment factor.

But that's not what I wanted to mention today.  What I wanted to point out, before you get swamped in the interviews with Sigorney Weaver or Jon Landau or the technical details or the reviews or the Happy Meal toys or iPhone games,  are Avatar's antecedants.

All art stands on the shoulders of those that come before.  (Some slips off and lands in the mud, of course . . .)   And every time I see a commercial or trailer or interview about Avatar, I can't help but think of these two:

Man Plus, a novel by Fredrick Pohl.  Pohl's (pretty durn depressing, in my view) centers around an Earth where it appears that two Cold War powers are about to nuke the living crap out of each other.  As a result, the U.S. engages in research to create a man who can live naturally on Mars.  You know:  without a suit, or special housing needs, who is adapted to the lower gravity, and so on.

"Desertion", a short story by Clifford D. Simak.  In this story, as part of the exploitation of Jupiter, men are transformed into a native Jovian life form called a "loper," and keep not returning to their original state.  (It would make a good "Twilight Zone" episode, I might add.)

So I'm definitely looking forward to the movie, and partly because I want to see what Cameron does with his version of pantropy.  Here's hoping it's worth the time.

Update:   A perfect example of why I rate films by "enjoyability" rather than "quality" is up today on Salon.  Stephanie Zacharek reviewed Avatar, and--I hesitate to use the word "hate"--really disliked it.  The review is difficult to find--not only is it not on the front page (in favor of The Young Victoria), it's not even "above the fold" in the Entertainment section.  Which makes sense to a degree--if the film is being heavily hyped, Salon doesn't need to hype it even more, especially when their reviewer thought it was a bad film.  On the other hand, The Young Victoria--a film that has received very little hype and stars little-know actors--is getting more "play".

Now, I don't know if The Young Victoria is a better or worse film than Avatar; I'm not even sure I'll go see it.  I might take my daughter to it--she loves those kinds of films.  But it's pretty safe to assume that I'll like Avatar, as Cameron has had a good track record entertaining me in the past.  But Zacharek doesn't have that luxury; she has to judge a film's "quality".  I think my way works better, honestly.

N.B.:  I think this need to judge "quality" is what makes "Best of the Year" and "Best of the Decade" lists so odd-looking to most folks, honestly.   Salon has been posting "Best of the Decade" choices for a week or so, and there have been films like Gosford Park, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Story of Marie and Julien, Punchdrunk Love, and other "quality" films (some of which I--a big film buff--haven't even heard of).  And as yet, I have yet to see The Lord of the Rings films, films which received rave reviews, lots of Academy awards, made tons of money, and were loved by millions.  It sometimes feels as if critics aren't allowed to list popular films--they can't be quality if they're loved by the hoi polloi.  (And for the record, no, I don't think critics are thinking that.)  But it is odd.  And perhaps the subject of another post.