I’m not going to get into a full review of Avatar. There are lots of reviews out there, take your pick, and I’m pretty sure I was one of the last people to see it. I will say that if you value visual over storytelling, you’ll love it. Otherwise, it’s like talking to that hot guy in college. So pretty, until he opens his mouth and ruins it.
But I saw Avatar in 3-D as it was “the only way to see it.” And I gotta say, I wasn’t impressed.
Understand, I’m not talking about the amazing CGI; that still goes unparalleled. I will even say that Jake Sully the Doc Manhattan look-alike had better facial expressions than Jake Sully the human. But I’m talking the 3-D portion of it.
I’m starting to worry that 3-D is a gimmick, like Flash on a website, that everyone is now using because they can, not because it’s a good idea. You’d think Avatar would have that reason, but most of the uses were just to give the scenes depth, and I am not willing to pay extra money for a tweak to the image depth. There are scenes with bugs, and with falling ash and seeds, that makes for an interesting experience, I’ll grant them that. But on the other hand, the couple of times the movie tried to give you a real OMG 3-D experience, like when someone aimed an arrow or a gun right at the camera, the image would lose its sharpness and get awkward and blurry, making you squint and turn your head, trying to get your bearings. Other objects placed in the foreground had that problem as well; I was distracted in a scene by a rock that I simply couldn’t focus on.
Coraline, however, had fantastic 3-D, some subtle enhancement, other plain freaky scenes, all perfectly done. (I’ve gone on about this before.) You might say that since Coraline was my first 3-D movie, it’s bound to be my favorite, but I don’t remember a headache at Coraline, or squinting as if the problem were with my eyes instead of with the movie itself.
There are similar scenes in Coraline and Avatar, both illustrating a walk between worlds as going through a twisty or unraveling corridor or canal. It’s one of my favorite 3-D moments in Coraline, really giving you the feeling of traveling. In Avatar, they couldn’t even get it in focus, and I can safely say that Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure had better animation for a twisty otherworldly tunnel.
I know I’m in the minority with my opinions of this movie. But I hated Titanic too, so I guess I’m just not cut out to be a Cameron fangirl. I will say that the animation was indeed spectacular, and I want my own flying dragon thingy, but the 3-D needed work, and if I had to sit in a theater for three hours again, I’d do it without the glasses.
Mur Lafferty is an author and podcaster. She is the host of I Should Be Writing and the author of Playing For Keeps, among other things. You can find all of her projects at Murverse.com.
…and I’m pretty sure I was one of the last people to see it.
Don’t worry, Mur. You’re definitely not the last. I haven’t seen it, nor do I want to. I refuse to financially compensate Dances With Wolves 2: The Smurfening.
3-D is a gimmick. It’s always been a gimmick. It was first really used in the 1950’s along with widescreen to keep audiences coming back to the theaters instead of just staying home and watching their televisions. All 3-D is, is the delusion that we the audience are really amerced in the world of the film. The recent combination of IMAX and 3-D is nothing more then a gimmick to get you to pay top dollar to see a film you could see for much cheaper without it. The rise in 3-D being used in every movie from Spy Kids 3-D to Gopher’s Run Amok in 3-D to Big Blue Smurfs in 3-D, is only capitalizing on the fact that this gimmick can pull you into paying more. But, that being said, Avatar’s purpose as a film is it’s 3-D. That’s the whole point. And Avatar does with 3-D what no other 3-D film has done before… apparently. If you can tell me what the difference is, please do. I’ll admit it looked better than Up in 3-D, and I’ll admit that it looks as though the future of big budget effects driven movies will all be in 3-D, but I won’t admit is that a movie like The Dark Knight or Lord of the Rings NEEDS to be seen in 3-D. Both of those films are better than Avatar without the need for an IMAX screen or 3-D technology. And James Cameron’s idea that his motion capture technology will replace actors in the future so that 50 years from now Will Smith can still look like himself from Independence Day, is complete and utter bull. I actually enjoyed the world of Avatar but it wasn’t because I felt I was there, or because the Na’vi had such “real emotion”, or the fact that it was plastered on a screen two stories tall, it was because for the first time since Star Wars it seemed like a genius filmmaker (and James Cameron is nothing but) was taking the time to create a unique world for film that hadn’t already existed in past films, television, books, or computer games. For all the plot ripping off a massive amount of other works, the world itself was a place we hadn’t been before, and a place I’d like to go again.
Sorry Mur, but “…on the other hand, the couple of times the movie tried to give you a real OMG 3-D experience, like when someone aimed an arrow or a gun right at the camera…” misses the point. That use of 3D is what’s gimmicky. Avatar gets it mostly right in that he uses it to enhance the feeling of the movie being a window into an actual place not just to poke things at you and make you jump.
I completely agree and thought something similar while watching it (on Friday, which makes me, too, one of the last people to have seen it, though the theater was packed). Most of the time that I thought to pay attention to the 3D, I felt that there was nothing it added that plain high-def digital projection couldn’t do (apropos of Kadere’s comment, some of the sights in the Star Wars prequels were at least as impressive). Yeah, the ash and flames and things flying into the foreground were surprising on occasion, but it doesn’t justify the effort. And there were some scenes, like in the room in the base with various workstations at various depths, which looked like Magic Eye pictures: a flat distant background with “3D” objects placed at various depths (but also flat) further forward. It had depth, but it didn’t look like ordinary vision.
On the other hand, I stopped trying to analyze the picture after an hour and I found myself really absorbed by the end. So I could be fooling myself. And just the spectacle was worth three dollars more. I don’t often feel like I got my money’s worth at a movie.
The 3D was completely useless in this, and especially maddening when they tack on a fee for glasses that they won’t let you re-use. I would have never even bothered with this film–and definitely not in 3D–had someone else not insisted to the point of paying for me.
Even then I really, really didn’t want to go. Turns out even the visuals I was hoping would be decent enough were so ridiculously sampled from other fantasy/sci-fi media that I felt even angrier leaving the film. New an interesting alien planet visuals? Try cracking a book on our ocean and rain forest flora. What I boring, uncreative, over-wrought, colossal waste of money. I think it’s more interesting to a 10 year old and/or someone who’s not a fantasy/sci-fi fan.
I too enjoyed the world of Pandora, but 2D would have been preferable to me.
I had to leave the theater after an hour because it was making me physically ill. Thought I was going to toss my cookies. We were about 3/4 of the way back in the Imax, which wasn’t far enough, obviously.
I’m happy to hear someone else complain about the lack of focus, too. I kept taking my glasses off to see if they were clean. I was beginning to think I was just crazy. Thank you.
I hope 3D is another passing gimmick. I would love to see the rest of the film someday, conventionally. The CG effects were very well done, but I do wish Cameron would focus his considerable talent on the story and world building, not 3D effects.
rickg@3 wins the internet.
I just wanted to comment on Coraline. The dancing mice scared the hell out of me!!! I had nightmares for days!
I’ve yet to hear anyone give a good explanation of how 3-D effects can improve a story.
I’ve never really heard anyone mention that 2-D movies somehow lacked realism that would be improved by 3-D, or that 2-D somehow interfered with their suspension of disbelief in a way that 3-D could address.
I’ve heard talk about how this or that story lets the movie maker use 3-D in an interesting way. But I’ve never heard anyone talk about a story needing 3-D in order to be told.
Unless film makers can let 3-D support the story, rather than the story supporting 3-D, it will remain a gimmick. And probably a bad gimmick, which will be a distraction both from telling good stories with film and from watching good stories in a theater.
3D can enhance the movie-viewing experience (and I thought that in the main, that’s what it did for Avatar) or it can be a gimmick. It’s just another item in the film-maker’s toolkit, neither good or evil.
As for the between-world transitions in Avatar, am I the only one who thought that it was a direct steal from Stargate?
Let it be known that I was the first to say this.
‘Avatar is sci-fi in the same way that Aaron Carter is a rapper.’
I just realised that was a little tough on Aaron Carter…
As far as the gimmickness of 3D in Avatar, I’m with rickg@3 on this. Whether it was done well or not, I can’t tell, as unfortunately, I don’t have anything to compare it to yet (of my own experience, that is)
However, @Ursula: 3D isn’t (and I hope never was or will be) supposed to enhance the story. It does exactly what promises: adds visual depth. Arguing it’s (lack of) enhancement to the story is similar to arguing what a movie does to enhance on a book. As far as I’m concerned, more often than not nothing and worse, but I still go and watch movies. Preferably after I’ve read the book.
I went into Avatar expecting a shallow but beautiful and epic movie. I came out angry at having wasted a portion of my life.
The 3D, as you say, was one of the worst elements, and yet I paid to see it that way! Items on the periphery of vision were out of focus in a distracting, unnatural way, and overall it added nothing to the film.
vallender@14: Well, I goofed and bought tickets to the plain 2-D showing, so I got a shallow but beautiful and epic movie. Sort of.
kzoltan@13: No, film is a fundamentally different medium to a book; each, when at their best, present stories in ways that the other simply cannot. 3-D, at least in its current incarnations, has shown no such capability.
Full immersion would, I think, change that. But anything short of that, in which the audience simply sits there and views a 3-D projection, is a waste of time and resources, and adds nothing substantial to the narrative.
I fully agree with this article. I saw Avatar, and while it certainly looked nice, the plot was absolute garbage. It’s a true tribute to how Hollywood values style over substance that someone is able to make a career out of taking old plotlines and adding fancy computer graphics, the way Cameron has. While I do like Aliens, I often feel like it was the last creative thing he did. The worst part is, I have heard so many people talk about how great and original Avatar is, and how it deserves and Oscar, and who angrily shout me down when I tell them it’s Dances with Wolves and every other film with that same plot ever.
I agree the 3D did not even remotely live up to the hype surrounding it. The 3D glasses also stole a bit of color from the film, in my opinion.
I will say the story had more depth than I was expecting (Though, maybe I was expecting none at all). What I had trouble accepting was mostly the Corporate and Military Villains. Ten years should be plenty of time to get a good script written and give all your characters (even the bad ones) the depth they deserve.
I think 3D is going to be a relatively short lived phenomenon. A lot of the tv manufacturers are starting to put a lot of money into developing it for home but I just can’t believe that it’ll be as successful as they hope.
As for Avatar, I remember when I was walking out and putting my 3D glasses into the recycle bin thinking that I’d forgotten I was watching 3D at all. There were a few initial moments that stood out toward the beginning but after that it all just sort of blended in for me. Coraline did impress me a little more but even then I didn’t feel like I got as much as I would have liked out of it.
I actually like Titanic but Avatar didn’t do much for me. Pretty but very shallow, in my opinion. I’m going to be pretty disappointed if it takes all the rewards this year.
I’ve said it before, Cameron still owes me over 4 hours of my life back for Titanic. Not gonna get sucked in to the hype. All flash no substance from people I know with viewer’s remorse. I’ll wait till I get sick or am laid up with some broken bones or something and I have re-read all the WoT series.
Guy needs to learn how to edit his movies to somewhere around the 2.5- 3 hr mark. I think he is rivaling Costner for Epic ego movies.
Woof™.
Thanks for giving me the perfect quote to explain to people why I’m not going to see Avatar. I see movies for the stories. If I want to see pretty images, I’ll go to an art gallery.
The more reviews I read of Avatar, the less I want to see it. This is especially strange because most of the reviews I’ve read are extremely positive. But the things they’re positive about are the visuals, the CGI, the 3-D, but they all say to pretty much ignore the story and enjoy the experience. I know I may be in the minority of people today, but I’m not willing to turn off my brain for four hours to have fun.
Y’all must have seen a different ‘Avatar’ than I did, I thought it was fantastic and was easily able to shrug off some of the weaker aspects.
Actually I kind of feel sorry for you guys. Seems like you missed out. (and I particularly feel sorry for you guys who feel like you’re “taking a stand” refusing to see it or something.. heh).
Avatar’s plot is rather hackneyed, indeed. But it’s written well and told well. The acting is mostly decent, and the directing is fluid. Moments of sfx for sfx’s sake are few. These qualities put it well ahead of any of the recent spate of superhero films (even Iron Man) and any of the Star Wars films, even the first one.
I realize that’s a low bar as far as SF movies go, but if you enjoyed any of those you should be able to enjoy this.
As far as I can tell, Avatar is to 3D what The Wizard of Oz was to color (in terms of hype, I haven’t seen Avatar so I won’t comment on quality). It’s not like the technology is new, I’ve been going to 3D Imax for decades, and in the last 10 years there has been more than just documentaries. Watching the Matrix sequals in 3D was awesome, and I look forward to Pixar films in 3D, but for some reason few people know about them. Cameron’s brilliance here was recognizing an opportunity to market the heck out of an already mature tech to people who didn’t realize it was possible.
Another thing that bugs me about the 3-D being the focus of the movie is that once you get this film home on your Blu-Ray player (or DVD player) it’ll look terrible. You’ll have your card board cut out 3-D glasses, that you’ll probably eventually misplace, you’ll be watching it on your 50 inch (or smaller) plasma (or not) tv, and the whole experience will be completely unworth it, unless you’re willing to put the money in for better equipment, and even then it won’t look like it did when you first experienced it.
And then down the line Avatar will be played on basic cable and there’s no WAY they’ll play it in 3-D! So the whole immersive experience will end there. Unless they rerelease it in theaters your kids will NEVER be able to experience this film like you have. And that’s a shame. It really makes the IMAX 3-D experience a once in a lifetime opportunity you’ll never get back, which only forces you to pay more now to witness it.
Kzoltan @@@@@ 13 wrote:
However, @@@@@Ursula: 3D isn’t (and I hope never was or will be) supposed to enhance the story. It does exactly what promises: adds visual depth. Arguing it’s (lack of) enhancement to the story is similar to arguing what a movie does to enhance on a book. As far as I’m concerned, more often than not nothing and worse, but I still go and watch movies. Preferably after I’ve read the book.
When well done, a film version of a book does “enhance” the story, or rather presents the story in a way that is fundamentally different from the book version, doing things a book can’t do. Properly done, the film version of a book doesn’t just dramatize the text of a book, it takes the story from the book and tells it in a way and with tools that create a new experience.
If you look at how special effects, in general, have developed, much has come from people having a story they want to tell, but not the technology, and then developing the technology because the story demands it.
Early puppets and monster-suits weren’t always convincing in the sense that you’d look at it and think it real, but a compelling story aides in the suspension of disbelief so that even a less-than-realistic special effect works when used in a dramatic way.
3-D, on the other hand, seems to be a special effect in search of stories. It’s been around in various forms for quite a while. Pretty much every 3-D movie also gets release in 2-D, which tells you about how much it is needed for good storytelling – even those film makers who choose to use it find it disposable.
Perhaps at some point some brilliant film maker will work out a way to tell stories so that 3-D is fully integrated into the storytelling and used as more than a gimmick.
But right now, it seems as if 3-D film making is at the stage where early movies were when they were pretty close to filmed stage productions, before the full toolbox of film making techniques created film as an art in its own right.