Friday, January 1, 2010

Avatar

Dear Hollywood --- please tell me a story FIRST. Don't be lazy and rely on the prettiness of Hi-Def and the novelty of Real 3D. They're not important. Tell me a good story with great actors being well-directed and use sound and vision TOGETHER. Film has all this going for it. Remember?

Okay, I went and saw Avatar yesterday with my son. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and think Cameron's retelling of the Europeans conquering indigenous peoples was deftly handled and acted well enough. I like that the Na'Vi language is new and is developing. I like the motion (performance) capture graphics on the animated characters. I think it's a neat idea that was well-executed.

But I didn't like it in 3D.

I've never liked 3D, and I don't know that I ever will. It requires too much of me and is too distracting. I already wear a pair of glasses and putting on a second pair to watch the film is annoying. It's pretty, but it's an effect. It's not a storytelling device. Cameron didn't do anything in the film to make me feel like 3D was absolutely necessary to telling the story. That means it's still just a stunt to lure people in. Avatar didn't need the 3D and I resented paying an extra three bucks to see it that way.

The last time I went to see a picture at our local twelve-pack theater, they weren't showing 3D films because they didn't have the projector. Fine, it looks like they paid for it but now they want me to choke up extra for it. I won't pay extra going forward for a stunt like that as it only rewards filmmakers and theater chains for bad behavior. I refuse to have the extra cost of a film passed on to me for something I won't enjoy.

I did like the movie though. The distraction of things popping out of the screen (I only ducked to the side once) was just that: a distraction. The story was long in spots (editing seems to be a thing of the past nowadays and I don't know why --- extended cuts are supposed to be on DVD/Blu Ray, aren't they?) but held my interest. If not for the silliness of the 3D stunt I'd've loved the film. As it is, I paid $10.50 for a goddamn matinee and the knucklehead behind the ticket counter was rude and didn't care. Avatar was not worth $10 a head at the theater and then when they ask me to buy it in 2D format at home, they'll ask for another $20 and I don't know if I'll pay that or not.

If it's the future of filmmaking, god help us. Use surround sound to pull the viewer from the back of the theater into the front of the screen if we're to feel 'involved' in the film. A master filmmaker can do it. We need more master filmmakers.

9 comments:

WEllwoods said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Seth said...

I have to comment, just to have an actual comment here... Crikey.

So, Jason, you would have enjoyed the movie had it not been in 3-D?

I think I'll miss this one. The extra $$ for the 3-D is pretty weak.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Seth said...

What the hell is going on with the comments???

Jason Arnett said...

Dunno, wonder who Anonymous is.

Who are you 'Anonymous'? Tell us! And thanks for the compliments.

Seth - yeah, I would've really liked Avatar for $7.50 at a matinee. It's derivative in its story and only barely original in the use of 'performance capture'. Too bad it'll take a lot of technical Oscars.

Jason Arnett said...

Okay we can ignore Anonymous here and delete the comments. WEllwoods can go away, too. Not contributing to the conversation and selling your own website is bad form.

mar said...

We have spammers! We're finally officially a real blog!

mar said...

There have been a number of movies in 3D -- have any of them required that the 3D is necessary?

And yet, you still really liked the movie. So without the gimmick, you still would have felt it was a great movie. So the gimmick didn't work for you but it wasn't necessary for you in the first place. So it was extra but, ideally, wouldn't take anything away from the movie for you, you're just angry that it was there at all, and that you had to pay extra for it. Fair enough. But if you've never liked 3D, why did you go see this movie in 3D? Didn't your theater offer another showing in 2D?

What "master filmmaker" do you feel are making movies today? Would you complain if Scorcese or Tarantino did movies in 3D?

Apparently a lot more people didn't find it annoying and seemed to really like it. Which is also great for people who have or may be working on the 2D-to-3D conversion process.