Avatar in IMAX

[dar512]

Just call me Mr. Oblivious. I don't remember seeing it before.

[Elspode]

I think it is hysterical that hundreds of design geeks are going to sit around and bash an element choice in a film that has already made over a billion dollars. Geez, Mr Cameron, what were you thinking?

As with all art, it's in the eye of the beholder. To my eye, Avatar was a hell of an accomplishment, and the fact that it is *still* selling out IMAX 3D theater showings is a pretty strong testimony to the fact that a large number of other folks think so, too.

99% of the people posting in that blog aren't going to earn 1/10000 of 1% of what this film will earn in their entire lifetimes as professional designers, instead realizing most of their incomes from jobs wherein the words "would you like to see our specials tonight" are required. Their artistic opinions are as valid as, say, mine, but I think Mr Cameron's earnings acumen has them all beat by a considerable margin.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Elspode

I think it is hysterical that hundreds of design geeks are going to sit around and bash an element choice in a film that has already made over a billion dollars. Geez, Mr Cameron, what were you thinking?

Well yeah, Spiderman saved the city, but he had a run in his tights... how plebecian.

Function, writing is supposed to be read, convey information.:p

[Pie]

Originally Posted by Elspode

I think it is hysterical that hundreds of design geeks are going to sit around and bash an element choice in a film that has already made over a billion dollars. Geez, Mr Cameron, what were you thinking?

Still, that's not the point. Every other aspect of the visual production was scrubbed and polished and gleaming and perfect. Then they throw in, oh, I dunno... Clumpy mascara on a vamped-up supermodel? Artisan salumi with wonderbread? A pine-scented air freshener hanging from the mirror of a Lamborghini?

Still tacky.

And I don't care how much goddamn money Mr. Cameron is worth. He put out a work of art to be judged by the public. I have made my judgment, and in a few small, specific areas, found his creation to be ...wanting.

[Flint]

I’m not trying to be non-conformist, I simply don’t think I can enjoy the movie when the act of watching it has been forced to be an analysis of what I am seeing on the screen versus the expectations created by an unrelenting, overly specific media campaign. The entire movie will be an out-of-the-moment experience. A meta-movie, about itself.

That, and when I actually saw a preview of the movie, it looked dumb. The recently-reformed, reluctant hero fights against impossible odds to save the idyllic utopian society from being destroyed by the military-industrial, shoot-em-up bad guys? Wow. My life won’t be complete until I see how that turns out.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Flint

I’m not trying to be non-conformist, I simply don’t think I can enjoy the movie when the act of watching it has been forced to be an analysis of what I am seeing on the screen versus the expectations created by an unrelenting, overly specific media campaign. The entire movie will be an out-of-the-moment experience. A meta-movie, about itself.

That, and when I actually saw a preview of the movie, it looked dumb. The recently-reformed, reluctant hero fights against impossible odds to save the idyllic utopian society from being destroyed by the military-industrial, shoot-em-up bad guys? Wow. My life won’t be complete until I see how that turns out. I MUST SEE IT.

OH gawd, what he said.

Someone said something about "neat effects, predictable storyline." ORLY? I never would have thunk.

Oh, and I thought Titanic was formulaic drivel, too.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Flint

Wow. My life won’t be complete until I see how that turns out.

And you went to Titanic to see how it would end?

As Ebert says, what makes a movie great is not what it says but how it says it.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by dar512

And you went to Titanic to see how it would end?

No, I didn't see it.

Originally Posted by dar512

As Ebert says, what makes a movie great is not what it says but how it says it.

I disagree 100%. What makes a classic (a classic anything) is substance.

On further reflection, I think you are mis-applying the intent of that quote. There IS a transcendant art to any field of craft, wherein the mind of the artist is evident in the creation, and the finished work is simply a conduit for the creative will of the artist. In that regard, "how" he says something is the important part.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Flint

I’m not trying to be non-conformist, I simply don’t think I can enjoy the movie when the act of watching it has been forced to be an analysis of what I am seeing on the screen versus the expectations created by an unrelenting, overly specific media campaign.

FWIW, not only did the media hype *not* influence me (I would have gone to see a movie by Cameron with this subject matter in any event - I like his work), I would go so far as to say that the trailers, in particular, did not even remotely convey the depth and immersive character of the world that was created.

I had no high expectations for this film, and as a result, became more and more awed and appreciative as the film wore on.

Flint, the media hype is there whether you see the film or not. As with many things, the only way to truly know how you will end up feeling about something is to experience it as it was meant to be experienced. I'm very, very cynical about film in particular as an art form, and for me, this was very nearly the best pure movie entertainment experience I've had.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Elspode

...to experience it as it was meant to be experienced...

Too late for that. They've framed how it should be experienced, thus I only have the option to agree or disagree (or get amnesia). I am choosing the third option: neither. Please note that this is not a decision to opt out of a default position, simply a decision not to execute a discretionary action.