interestingly, the first exchange (before Selfridge goes to his office) isn't that terrible. It's clunky as hell, but at least the characters are expressing opinions and desires - he views the situation in one way and wants one thing, she views it another way and wants the opposite. It's after those lines that things get *really* bad - chiefly because they're telling each other things they already know, and must have known for years. And because, I think, there's no change or threat of change implied in the conversation. Selfridge explains what the situation is, she snipes at him but can't change it. There's no drama without change (or an attempt at it, anyway) right?

Keeping in mind that Jake Sully had been on the ship headed to Pandora for years already at this point, this exposition is especially bizarre. Not only is every line of this scene two people telling each other what they already know, but they're having a conversation they should have had YEARS AGO! Is she really just finding out now Jake is a marine and objecting to another "trigger happy asshole" for the first time? Or is just that they've been having this same exact conversation every time Jake's name came up for the years he spent on the trip from Earth? On a side note, does the idea of the entire "Avatar" program strike anyone else as a little weird... and maybe borderline racist? Why would wearing fake bodies of Na'vi help win their hearts and minds? Especially given that humans are an invading colonial power to them... Wouldn't that be like a white European power saying "we could win the hearts and minds of those African villagers by dressing up in blackface whenever we meet with them"? Does anyone think that would really help anything?

The Avatar program is an interesting question. I suppose they'd defend it by saying 'it allows us to have face to face dialogue with the natives (without choking in their atmosphere and stuff) and thus study their culture firsthand.' The good SF question here is "Does taking on a new physical form affect the way you perceive the world, and even the way you think?" The movie seems to suggest "Yes", since the humans who rebel and help the Na'vi are largely those in the avatar program. Which is another layer of depth in the movie, even if it's not that well explored.

Okay, I like Cameron as a filmmaker so I'm gonna take the contrary view on this one, see how far it gets us. I say this is not terrible exposition. In only seven lines we get an overview of the entire colonising force including the reason the mission exists, the rival factions, pecking order, each side's attitude to each other and to the arriving protagonist, the fears of each faction, and we also get a look at who leads the two sides so we'll remember them later. We even get an overt current affairs reference (hearts and minds) so we can instantly orient ourselves as to how this occupation is being conducted. That's really packing in the info for a half a page or so. Cameron does not write elegant dialogue, but every word in his scripts is functional - in the service of the narrative. So this exposition, whilst simplistic, admirably serves its purpose to inform the audience about the state of the film's world. QED

I realized something about the whole thread on this we had yesterday: We're likely being incredibly unfair to the writers and directors. Example: When my brother and I left Minority Report a few years back, we both liked it, but laughed at the ridiculous amount of exposition in Cruise's final standoff. My brother said, "But you know, that wasn't really for *us*. They can't make a $200 million movie and have half the people miss what's happening." When you look at a movie like Avatar or Inception, a studio is going to insist on a little hand holding to make such expensive movies.

I really don't have much problem with this scene. I'm not disagreeing with anyone's sentiment. I think everyone's arguments hold water. However -- "This is why we’re here. Unobtanium. Because this little gray rock sells for twenty million a kilo. No other reason. This is what pays for the party. And it’s what pays for your science. Comprendo?" Is necessary exposition. It's the entire complication of the plot boiled down into a few sentences. And in James Cameron fashion -- it's blunt and direct, like the characters delivering it. "You aren't in Kansas anymore!" What helps sell this is 1) it's early and 2) that the exposition is presented in the voice of the character giving it. There's no sentimentality or debate over it. A worse version would be something like -- "Do you think it's bad that we are harvesting unobtanium from the indigenous people, Sigourney? It's a moral dilemma, I know. But these tiny rocks are worth twenty million a kilo and fuel our entire economy back home. Either get the giant blue apes to move or I'm going to send in Captain hyperbole over there with the scarred up face to murder them all in a fashion that hasn't been seen since 9-11." So, I def think there's shades of grey when it comes to bad exposition.

Hi, can somebody please tell me how to correctly format a title page nowadays, I've checked in this blog and the link about "how to format title page" doesn't work anymore, I've seen some samples on other pages but most are different than the other, and is it really necessary to put my physical address and number even if I live abroad?? thanks guys.

I personally don't necessarily think the scene needed to happen. This is the kind of stuff you get when the writer doesn't trust the audience enough. Through watching the story unfold we begin to understand the mission the solders have and the scientists have. If the scene needed to happen it would make sense for selfridge to go over with it with Jake not Grace. We understand the scientists mission just through Jake interacting with them. The only thing this scene really accomplishes in my opinion is setting up the personal rivalry between Grace and Selfridge. However, that could have been done in a more officiant and emotional way.

James and David, it is necessary exposition but the question is whether or not it's done in a good way. In my view this is terrible. There's nothing worse than to hear a character bluntly state information like this to another character on screen. It is obviously done for the audience's benefit. No one talks like that in real life. These people work together and surely know the purpose of their mission. It's a lazy way of conveying necessary information. 100+ years of cinema history and this is the best way of showing this? No finesse at all. It's not a sport to see how much exposition you can cram onto each page. Imagine how great this film would have been if Cameron had put as much thought into the script as he did the CGI. I have a term for it: Plot Vomit - that's what this dialogue is and I also threw up a bit in my mouth hearing it.

Dressing and acting like those not of your culture to ingratiate yourself in the culture can be very hurtful. I've seen it. They're fully aware you're not like them and from their perspective, as Richard said, it's insulting. Changing your external situation can modify some of your perceptions but you will never not be you trying to be them. On a very different note, here's a SNL on Avatar complete with bad exposition.

So - how do you think it compares to other Cameron exposition? Like on a black/white/grey scale.

I agree Teddy. I just think there's tradeoffs. What did we gain by this scene being this way? What did we lose? I agree we lost some artistry. But I think we get to jump into the fun stuff a lot sooner. We don't need a prologue to setup the world or unobtanium (which the original script actually had). Don't need to dwell on why we are there. Really the question is -- is the time it would take to get this exposition out in a more artistic manner worth it? Avatar has a lot of exposition it has to chew threw that the audience needs to understand before we get to the fun stuff. To me, this scene is really about efficiency more than artistry. And I'm fine with that. "These people work together and surely know the purpose of their mission" I don't wholly agree with this. Sigourney is a field scientist that obviously wants nothing to do with any military or corporate involvement. Ribisi is a business man overseeing the extraction of the unobtainium. There's even a separate facility that the scientists had been based out of to teach the natives to speak English -- talk about a great way to not only get exposition out, but to explain why they can talk with each other. I'm not sure how much their lives would really cross over. I think -- had they not been confined to a singular main facility on Pandora, you probably wouldn't have as big of an issue either. I'm willing to let that fall into the category of suspension of disbelief. To me, Ribisi's reaction is not a "first time" telling her this -- rather a "last time / final straw." Again, I'm not standing up for this being any kind of masterpiece. It clearly isn't.

I see your point with 'final straw.' At least he didn't say "I'll tell you again for the last time!"

Teddy, surely *terrible* exposition would be a scene where the requisite information isn't clear, in the same way a terrible comedic scene would be one that isn't funny, and a terrible dramatic scene one that doesn't evoke emotion. This exposition is just clunky. As James points out, the advantage of cramming the info into less time is that we can get onto the cinematic pleasures all the quicker. It could all have been better though, no doubt. And regarding Debbie's point in the first comment, I think there is something at stake throughout the scene: Grace doesn't want the Marine on her team and Selfridge does. The scene isn't 'won' until Selfridge plays his card "And it's what pays for your science." He's beaten Grace into silence, and demonstrates the point with the taunting "Comprendo?" to which she has no answer. It's a decent enough conflict for the actors to play.

I know filmmakers and writers like little in-jokes. In The Prestige the character Alfred Borden Robert Angier's initials spell ABRA. In Fight Club there were Drew Barrymore references because of her friendship with Norton. Disregard every single word except unobtanium and I still find this defines terrible exposition. I know Cameron didn't invent the word but its use serves up the entire plot on a plate. It leaves nothing to ponder, interpret, or unravel. Much like, in my opinion, the rest of the film.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the degree of terrible/bad/clunky/half-assed what-not - I realize that a lot of this is subjective. However, in regards to your comment "...we can get onto the cinematic pleasures all the quicker.", that's exactly the difference between Cameron and a great filmmaker. Unless you treat everything in your script and film with the same respect and attention, you will never be great. A great writer or director or artist doesn't consider parts of their work to be filler material so they can move on to the good stuff. It should all be "cinematic pleasures." Watch a movie by a great director, and you'll get cinematic pleasures from all aspects of the film - from dialogue and plot and exposition and story and... well... everything. After seeing these terribly executed scenes in Avatar, I couldn't care less how spectacular the battle scenes were or how amazing the CGI looked.

There was a comment like that about Inception too. Something like "it just couldn't stop telling us it was a movie."

lol.

Watch the very end of The Abyss. UGH! I think this scene is very standard Cameron. Middle of the line passable exposition. He just wants to get on with the story. And I don't blame him. This is the boring part lol. I'd have to dig through AVATAR. I know there's some stuff that made me want to throw a shoe at the screen. Reese and the Terminator backstory is handled much better. It's given in 3 ways. 1) Flashbacks / dreams (not explicitly stated) he's haunted by them 2) When he's trying to explain to Sarah Connor why she's being chased -- and likewise why to trust him, plus that scene is embedded in a car chase 3) At the police station, which is a nice touch because we know he's telling the truth, but no one believes him. There's sort of a 4th -- Sarah asks him about her son. She does it to take her mind off the field dressing/blood. It's not really necessary exposition, but it is a nice moment between the characters, plus you get to see Sarah take that first step towards becoming the badass she will become in the sequel. TITANIC has a boatload (PUNS!) of exposition. His method to lessen the load was to frame the story through old Rose and Bill Paxton in the present. It helps soften the blow. Paxton wants to find the Heart of the Ocean. So he's asking her about her past. Which opens a door to give needed exposition. It's def better there -- then say, Billy Zane's character rattling it all off. Spielberg tends to make exposition fun. The dinosaur "exhibit" with the video presentation in Jurassic Park is great. As is Ian Malcolm's line describing the potential problem -- "Yes, but when the Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists." Beats the hell out of the unobtanium line, right? Cameron tends to make his exposition blunt and tries to hide it in other ways. In action. In having characters that would actually need to ask these questions -- like Ripley being the only one that knows about the alien in ALIENS, justifies a lot of exposition from the Marines. What's great about that is it actually allows for a lot of exposition later in the film as well. The Marines start off cocky, pretty much ignoring Ripley. After the midpoint they are FULL OF PANIC and QUESTIONS! Wow long answer for that question. I don't know. Cameron isn't known for terrific exposition. He's known for his action. There's also a lot of cinematic technique that helps hide exposition. Watch ALIENS where they are planning out how they are going to hole up in the medical lab. This is all exposition between Ripley and Michael Biehn. But the camera is on Newt putting a helmet on. It's cute. Obviously, I'm a Cameron fan. Avatar is the least favorite of his films for me. To answer your question -- he's done much better.

http://tinyurl.com/3bc7mnp

I appreciate your long answer. So I'll ask - who would you say is known for terrific exposition?

Here's a question - how would you guys improve the scene? How would you get the required info across without the clunky exposition? I'm curious to find out what people suggest as I think it could definitely be improved. I didn't mind Avatar as an experience but I think the characters and dialogue were pretty boring and unremarkable. I wonder if those elements would have been better had the movie been made by JC much earlier in his career. He seems to be focused more on technology than story and characters these days.