Here is the AICN interview that Dennis refers to, where a physicist/astronomer interviews Cameron... Here are some quotes:
James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)
- Thread starter chrisspringob
- Start date
One of the things that I enjoy about Avatar is that most filmmakers and screenwriters don't even ask or think about those kinds of questions before they improvise - it's obvious from watching the movie that Cameron does. Is he unique in that regard, right now, among commercial filmmakers? Pretty darned near.
I'm not sure I want to pay to watch this on TV - too much of the experience is lost.
Wait--what? We agree about Avatar on something?
I don't know, if they ever perfect 3D home viewing, I think it could be okay. Nothing is going to compare to the 3D IMAX I saw it in, though.
But what about watching it for the way it executes its fantastic story and characters? If the execution is that good, does it matter if it's not in IMAX 3D?
This movie was AHmazing in IMAX 3D and the ultimate in badass kick-butt alien natives and robots and technology. The only thing that bothered me was the way they depicted the Marines (they were Marines, right?). The way that they were all just out for violence and shooting "savages"...
Your attempt at wit is lost in silly reductionism.
Why should I watch any film that's based on a book, after all? The execution of story and character is almost always superior in the original prose - unless one is very, very lazy.
Red herring, try again. You won't successfully pull of the conceit that my appreciation for the story and characters is somehow mislead compared to your dismissiveness, though.
When I watch a film as remarkable for its visual execution as this one is, I want the full experience. I already know that seeing it flat on a small screen is much, much less satisfactory than seeing it as it's meant to be seen, so why should I rush to spend money on it?
The only reason I might is if there are significant extras on the disk pertaining to how the film was created visually.
The comparison of changes from 3D to 2D, to changes from book to film, is completely invalid.
The change from book to film almost always, necessarily, involves changes in pacing, characters and plotting. There's a definite change to the execution of the story. The change in Avatar from 3D to 2D alters nothing except whether or not you're wearing glasses and seeing a few things in a slightly different perspective. That doesn't change character, plot or pacing. NO change in execution. So if Cameron really is such a master filmmaker, then his film ought to have some intrinsic value beyond a 3D screening, shouldn't it? If the characters are really *that* good, if the story is executed *that* well, a change from 3D to 2D ought not to matter.
Or is the film exactly what some of us have posited all along: A *really* beautiful film that isn't as valuable when you strip away the spectacle and focus on such trivialities as character, plot, and originality? Because if the film was that good, shouldn't it be worth watching at home, to experience such masterful cinematic art?
The change from book to film almost always, necessarily, involves changes in pacing, characters and plotting. There's a definite change to the execution of the story. The change in Avatar from 3D to 2D alters nothing except whether or not you're wearing glasses and seeing a few things in a slightly different perspective. That doesn't change character, plot or pacing. NO change in execution. So if Cameron really is such a master filmmaker, then his film ought to have some intrinsic value beyond a 3D screening, shouldn't it? If the characters are really *that* good, if the story is executed *that* well, a change from 3D to 2D ought not to matter.
Or is the film exactly what some of us have posited all along: A *really* beautiful film that isn't as valuable when you strip away the spectacle and focus on such trivialities as character, plot, and originality? Because if the film was that good, shouldn't it be worth watching at home, to experience such masterful cinematic art?
Yeah almost everyone who has seen the film in both 2D and 3D seems to agree that the film loses very little in 2D.
In fact, the whole film was edited and assembled in 2D - it was not until very late in the process that they turned to fine-tuning the stereoscopic aspects for the shots they knew would be final. Cameron had to make sure the film would work in 2D as well as 3D, since the majority of the world would see it in 2D.
Re: DVD release - I'll be sure to get the barebones edition. But then again I am a shameless double-dipper for films that I love. (Like the LOTR series) Some good special features would be nice as well. I don't really need an extended cut personally.
And Samuel Waters, it is curious how people seem to downgrade a film because it has amazing visuals. But you know what? Film is a VISUAL medium. A film should look as good as it can. You didn't care for the other aspects? That's OK - but many certainly did. There are many beautiful classics that I find a bore as well. Tastes differ.
In fact, the whole film was edited and assembled in 2D - it was not until very late in the process that they turned to fine-tuning the stereoscopic aspects for the shots they knew would be final. Cameron had to make sure the film would work in 2D as well as 3D, since the majority of the world would see it in 2D.
Re: DVD release - I'll be sure to get the barebones edition. But then again I am a shameless double-dipper for films that I love. (Like the LOTR series) Some good special features would be nice as well. I don't really need an extended cut personally.
And Samuel Waters, it is curious how people seem to downgrade a film because it has amazing visuals. But you know what? Film is a VISUAL medium. A film should look as good as it can. You didn't care for the other aspects? That's OK - but many certainly did. There are many beautiful classics that I find a bore as well. Tastes differ.
They may have been x-military but they were not Marines. They were mercenaries, hired by the corporation for security. Those guys were there for the money, not some ideal about fighting for freedom or defending their country.
That's why Trudy had the freedom to leave the battle.
Brit
That's how I took it. They're still marines, but the situation is so different from anything they've done before that their normal rules don't really apply.
I wholeheartedly agree that amazing visuals cannot be fully separated from the overall film. As a point of fact, that's a consideration I took into account when I rated the film: Average story + Exceptional visuals = Good (but not great) film.And Samuel Waters, it is curious how people seem to downgrade a film because it has amazing visuals. But you know what? Film is a VISUAL medium. A film should look as good as it can. You didn't care for the other aspects? That's OK - but many certainly did. There are many beautiful classics that I find a bore as well. Tastes differ.
The story isn't terrible, I just wish it had been better, more original, with deeper characters and better dialogue. Even considering all that, I actually liked Avatar, primarily because of the visuals -- and the world-building. Ironically, I'll probably be adding the DVD to my library not too long after it's released.
Not in the least, but I suppose I can see why you might think otherwise. C'est la guerre.
This is generally true, but I like the control I have on my home theater system...decent sized big screen HDTV, surround sound, etc. I can usually adust the color better than the primitive projecting method lots of theaters still use. Of all the visual media, cinema is the most backward and slowest to catch up in technology...hard to beat a huge picture though.
RAMA
Last edited:
When it's available in 3D I'll think about it.
Now excuse me, I want to go watch Casablanca with the sound turned off.
