Avatar (same thread new title) - Page 67

And herein lies the problem, you are taking offense to people having a viewpoint that is different than your own.

The movie is very simplistic, and the story is in not original. It's been pointed out many many times by many people. For people to simply ignore that and say it ain't so because James Cameron put a lot of time and effort into it is being a little blind about the whole thing.

I respect the effort he put into the movie as much as anyone, but why should that blind me to every aspect of the finshied product. I enjoyed the movie, but the un-originalty stood out FOR ME. Maybe not for you, but it did for me. Stop trying to tell me that it's original when it is painfully obvious that it is. You can argue the mwerits of the story, but is not opinion that it isn;t original. Many of you on the opposite side of the argument have stated the movie isn't original, and then just turn around and say it is. Seriously?

The movie isn't original, but the story was still enjoyable for me and many people, and I had a great time at the theater. How anyone can refute that is just beyond me.

Yeah, really. Don't get offended people. RELAX.

It's just a movie. Us finding it falling a little short isn't going to cause others to demand their money back, or cause Cameron to not make films anymore, or cause the film gods to wreck vengeance on Fox studios. It's just our opinion. And it shouldn't cause anyone to not like the film if they really, truly did.

You missed my point, even though you didn't know what would happen next in Empire the first time you watched it, you do now, and yet you'll still watch it again. The fact you KNOW what's going to happen doesn't hinder your enjoyment of the movie on subsequent viewings.

So it's fair to say "the story didn't resonate with me, I didn't care for the characters or their situations and therefore I don't like the movie".....but I don't feel it's fair to say "the story is horrible because it's familiar". Hey if you felt nothing watching the movie then nothing anyone can say is going to convince you otherwise, that's simply your opinion.

I've seen dozens of "spectacle" movies that had amazing effects, action and cinematography but the plot details made no sense, characters motivations were contrived and the editing made everything a confusing mess. One of the things I've noticed about Avatar on repeat viewing is how "tight" everything is, everything makes complete sense, you know what is going on at all times, every line of dialogue serves a purpose, every scene has a purpose. I think because it all seems so effortless people equate it to being "simple" and "easy" but I think we've all seen enough bad action movies to know how easily a simple thing like a coherent plot can be screwed up.

No one is really saying "Avatar is horrible." I agree that it did everything right by the numbers, but it lacks that little extra push that puts films like Empire on top. For me.

It's like the baseball player who has great numbers in the regular season, but lacks that little extra piece that makes them great in the clutch and a potential hall of famer.

Now obviously Avatars visuals and box office will make it memorable, but both of those things will be surpassed given enough time. A story that is tops is what keeps Empire going 30+ years later.

Maybe Avatar will have it, but I don't really think so.

No one is trying to regute that... I think were just arguing semantics. The movie is original and the movie isn't original. You say theres not an original bone in it's body, but yet the movie is exploding with originality. You say the story isn't original, yet no story is truly original. It seems that most of what has been tried to get across to you either escapes you, isn't supplemented well enough, or gets lost in your fervor to make your own statements heard and understood. Perhaps a combination of all 3, lol.. of course these are things that every person is guilty of or deals with at some point.

Also, I'm not personally offended by this at all, or other peoples viewpoints. Perhaps I didn't explain my statement well enough (see!).

I think Cameron had the best of intentions, lwright84, but you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I honestly think he did try to make a good film. I just think it fell short in one area, and it was a letdown for me. Obviously others disagree.

I understand and have understood that with others. As I said, I think semantics have cluttered the discussions from both ends.

As for me, I was so enraptured by the world presented that I genuinely cared for the characters and outcome of the story. Even though I knew how it was going to end and most of it was completely predictable, to me it was told so coherently, so epicly, and so fluidly that it didn't matter. That's the point I've tried to make, is that a familiar or even unoriginal story can be told so well that the end result is good, great, or even better. If that's not the case, there'd be no reason to have any books, poems, music, or movies for the past few millenia.

Obviously some people dont feel that the storytelling was that coherent, epic, fluid, whathaveu and I (find that hard to believe) just find that unfortunate but have no problem with it. To each his own. Ive just been trying to distinguish some facts among the opinions (such as theres not a single iota of originality in the entire film) and perhaps the aforemetioned semantics have muddled some of that discussion as I said.

I agree, but this is one of those things that for each individual it either works for them or it doesn't on various levels.

I felt Star Wars was a hero's journey tale (stretching all the way to Gilgamesh) that was told so well that I didn't notice the hand operating the puppet strings. Avatar, I didn't feel the same way. I was aware of how it wasn't that original.

Obviously it worked for you, but you know.

And some of us are BIG fans of Cameron, too, so it's not hating on him or his past work. Maybe that's part of it. We were expecting something else from him.


I actually agree. The storytelling IS fluid, epic, and I understood everything that happened.

It just doesn't have that extra piece to me that puts this film with the all-time greats. Maybe it does for you.

It's the funny thing about art, film, literature. You can do EVERYTHING right by the book and still not be perfect. And that's okay. It just mean's Cameron is human and not some God who will smite everyone who didn't like his films.

One could argue that Avatar's familiarity is part of its charm.

You questioned whether or not I ever watch a movie more than once. My response was the same then as it is to this post: Sure, if it's good enough to warrant repeated veiwings.
Never said it was horrible. I said it was horribly predictable.
Avatar had all that.
Avatar's plot made sense.
The character motivations were contrived here.
Yes, up to two hours before the characters knew.
I agree: To move along to the next CGI'd scene.
Avatar's plot is "simple" and "easy". That's been covered by even the big time fans.

I don't think anyone is arguing the familiarity is the flaw as much as the predictability. There is a difference.

Star Wars has that charming familiarity, but most didn't find it that predictable. Some did, obviously, but to the same degree of Avatar?

I guess there's is no point having a discussion with some people. All you want to do is take pot shots.

I don't see him taking pot shots. He was breaking down your argument with his points, all logically and without calling you names. If you feel strongly about your position, you're free to have a rebuttal.

If you don't like that, then stay off of Internet forums.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say, yes.

Obviously this seems to be the majority of opinion. When I saw the movie last night in Imax people still clapped at the end. It's been out a month already. I've only ever had people clap when I've gone opening nights/weekends.

He's taking pot shots at the movie and sidestepping most of my actual points in my post. It's clear no amount of discussion is going to change his opinion or have him try to see the other point of view.

Why are you trying to change his opinion? He found the plot predictable. No amount of discussion is going to change that opinion, because it's based on his feelings when he was watching it. You might as well try convincing a Cowboys fan that the Eagles are the team to root for.

I'm pretty sure he sees your point of view, he just disagrees.

And I don't think he sidestepped your points. If he did, then point out where he did. That simple.

I answered you. If you don't want to hear an answer, don't ask the question.

You're trying to change my opinion?

I've mentioned at least a dozen times how much I enjoyed this movie. I just have the ability to very clearly see its flaws. Flaws that did, indeed, prove to be distracting. I hold movies to a certain standard, and sometimes that standard isn't met.

I just watched Moon, and thought it was fantastic (with flaws, of course). You're welcome to go to that thread and tear that movie apart, and I promise I won't try to convince you otherwise.

Im not going to read the 200 pages to find out why some are arguing. BUT why are people arguing? Its a movie. It was the most expensive movie. It has earned a LOT of money and will be the largest selling film in history very soon.

The story although not terribly original was good non the less and the visuals were above anything we have seen to date. What is there to argue about? Facts are facts and everything else is just personal opinion.

I've been trying to get my opinions out just as much as you have been. I'm not slow witted, I understand competely what you and others are saying. I just don't agree with it 100%. Far too many elements of Avatar weren't original to me. To you they were. That's just how it is.

That's why there's an argument. People don't want to believe that simple thing.

Then you answered your own question: We're arguing over personal opinion. Some people just can't seem to accept that my opinion is the right one.

It's just how movie threads go. Especially the "Big" movies. Most of us actually enjoying discussing varying viewpoints, assuming they're backed up with some believable reasoning. Some people get upset when their movie isn't seen as perfect.

And they would have a strong argument.

I've always been fond of the old saying, "familiarity breeds contempt". That line of thinking seems to hold true for me in movies, since I so often catch myself wondering when I'll get a story on film that I've never seen before. Doesn't seem to happen too often. Too much money at stake, I guess.

I have now seen the movie Avatar four times, in three different 3D technologies, over a relatively short period of 4 weeks. I took notes, and these are my comparisons of the technology used.

I wear eyeglasses and just got new ones in mid-December, by the way. I always managed to find my preferred theater seat which is center of the upper section in a row where my eye level is mid-screen or just barely below mid-screen.

Viewing #1 - RealD 3D on a 2K projector and silver matte screen (CineArts Santana Row), mid-sized rectangular shaped theater with decent sound. Aspect Ratio 1.78:1.

Viewing #2 - IMAX Digital 3D (AMC Cupertino Square), mid-sized theater with double 2K projectors, white screen, and IMAX sound. Aspect Ratio 1.78:1.

Viewing #3 - RealD 3D on a bright Sony 4K projector (Camera 7 at the Pruneyard). Wedge-shaped large auditorium with a silver matte screen and killer THX-certified sound. Aspect Ratio 1.78:1.

Viewing #4 - Dolby Digital 3D on a 2K projector on a white screen (CineLuxe Plaza) with Dolby sound. Aspect Ratio 2.35:1.

Best 3D presentation : RealD 3D at the Camera 7. The large screen, bright 4K Sony projector, and large auditorium, all make for a great image. The screen illumination from the huge 4K projector was the brightest. The Digital IMAX brightness was close, but the differences are that IMAX was using two projectors on a different size of screen, so your brightness may vary in your particular theater. The RealD 3D on a 2K projector was still very decent. The Dolby 3D presntation was too dim for my tastes, and was also the only one of the four digital theaters that was projecting an AR of 2.35:1 - this caused some of the floating "seeds of Eywa" to be floating slightly offscreen above the theater seats, which I found distracting.

While I'm thinking abot it, the Dolby Digital 3D had one other problem that was distracting to me. The concave inner surface of the Dolby 3D glasses allowed me to see some light that was reflecting off of the shiny new front surface of the polycarbonate lenses of my eyeglasses. This amounted to a distraction - one I eventually overcame by tilting the overlying 3D glasses slightly downwards by lifting the flexy frame sidepieces slightly above my ears. This moved the light bar (which was actually a dim vertically-compressed reflected image) off of the screen area and overlaid it on the dark curtain above the screen, where I could ignore it.

Because of this problem, plus the fact that the Dolby glasses had been used and washed who knows how many times, and also displayed some fine scratches on both inner and outer surfaces, I award the Dolby 3D technology last place among the three. I will mention however that in a theater with a brighter projector, the Dolby technology could be competitive with the RealD 3D. The focus of the Dolby 3D image may have been the finest that I saw, and I have heard that this is typical, because the other two 3D technologies hang polarizers in front of the projector lenses, and the Dolby 3D filter is internal to the projector, before the lens.

The Red/Cyan filter technology that Dolby uses caused no color shifts that I could discern - these are not the old anaglyph glasses, far from it.

Best sound: The THX-certified sound system at the Camera 7, along with the great acoustics in the wedge-shaped auditorium, plus the perfect mix of absorptive and reflective surface treatments, all made for perfectly clear dialogue and immersive surround effects. The bass in this theater was also fully the equal of the IMAX theater, which also had very good audio. These two theaters were a step above the other two in audio quality.

All in all, if they have a 3D film I am interested in, I'm going to return to the Camera 7 in the Pruneyard. I have also seen several fine 2D films and digital movies there.

....if it had any charm, which it really didnt

That makes me so jealous.

Thanks for your thoughts on the rest of it. I only saw it in RealD, but have no idea what the equipment being used was. The picture was too dim, I do know that.

Great write up. You've inspired me to look for another screen if I go see it again. I've seen it twice, but both times in the same local digital IMAX theater.

I didn't know Dolby was using color filtering for 3D. Is that viewed with colored glasses, or am I confusing the technologies?

Dolby 3D:

http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/dolby-3d.pdf

Some high-level technical info on the various formats for those wanting it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX_3D#IMAX_3D

Not mentioned here but a method used in some theaters:
http://www.xpandcinema.com/

Note that "Disney Digital 3D" is not a presentation or capture format, it is just Disney's branding for their 3D movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Digital_3-D

Thank you, that's my dinner reading for tonight.