An Enigmatic Existence

Thank you to those of you who added comments to my previous post. I enjoy a good dialogue and they've even made me change my mind a time or two.

I was pondering the other day about holding the position of an anesthesiologist and what exactly that entails. Not exactly what one does, but more what it's like and I wonder if it's a do nothing job mostly. Sure you have to knock people out before surgery and know how much to give them, but besides that is there anything else? Does an anesthesiologist ever get angry at a doctor because the patient woke up in mid surgery because the doctor got some specifications wrong, or worse, didn't get them to the anesthesiologist in time? Does a surgeon ever get angry at an anesthesiologist because his patient woke up? And is there any room for upward movement from that position? Does anyone ever look at an anesthesiologist and say "That guy sure knows how to gas people! One day he'll be chief of surgery!"

These are the ramblings that occupy my brain.

I have to say a few things about "Avatar" before the Academy Awards, and I may be the first to say such things. All things considered, I give "Avatar" a B-. I have to say I was expecting more. If you've read my previous posts, you'll see I practically loved all of Cameron's movies before "Avatar." But for me, "Avatar" is missing something, and I call that character development. This is one of three elements to me that makes a good story, the other two being story line and dialogue. Of Cameron's previous films I enjoy, those films have at least two of the three, if not all three. This movie barely focused on any one of those three elements. The story was basic. Save the trees? Seriously? We've all seen this before and personally I'm beginning to get tired of it. Dialogue was standard, nothing phenomenal, which that alone is not why I was disappointed in "Avatar." Character Development: NONE. You had two sides, save the trees, and kill everything. That was it. Sigourney Weaver's character barely had a hint of development. Perhaps there was more to her character, but if there was any, it blended into the whole save the trees plot.

Was the movie visually spectacular? Absolutely, yes it was. But I don't care about effects. All Cameron did was make an average film look really cool. It's like putting marshmallows on crummy hot chocolate, but somehow a four year old kid will find it delicious.

I've heard the new "Star Trek" movie had a basic plot. I agree, it did. However each of the characters in that film were so well played and developed, that the story was supporting the characters in this case, as opposed to the other way around. In addition, most of us have seen what happens when a Star Trek plot gets too complicated; we get lost and the film gets bad reviews. For kicking off an old franchise to a new audience, I agree with the simplicity method.

Hang in there, you've only got the rest of your life left.