I think HFR will eventually catch on, but it will be a much more gradual change. I also think the driving force will be television, not film--much like high definition. Because HFR is a total paradigm shift, it's not a new novelty experience.
Jake, but never sure if it's Scully or Sully. I have zero interest in the sequel. I saw the first for free and outside the visuals found nothing interesting of the world or the characters. I will not go to a sequel. I do not foresee it regaining the appeal of '09 regardless of the HFR gimmick he'll use. It did $760m US domestic in '09, even with inflation if it does 1/2 they should be happy. The global markets keep expanding so I suspect it'll have a higher % retention rate fiscally. Avatar is the only James Cameron film where I felt largely cheated. I get that Titanic is a romance story and those aren't exactly varied. However, he told it very, very well. The actors sold it very well. Terminator wasn't all that original(ok, at the time it felt that way), in hindsight knowing things I know now, still it was told well and the actors were phenomenal. The scripts were solid material for them to work from. Avatar has some good actors, I'll give, but the script is so horrid even the actors can't salvage it.
I don't think HFR is a gimmick. It's a legitimate attempt to improve cinema. The current framerate is a limitation of century old technology. Since that limitation is gone, we should strive to make movies look as life-like as possible, even if that seems jarring at first.
I wouldn't say HFR is a gimmick, but I'm not convinced it is an improvement. Here's why I'm skeptical. Cinema effects might not look cooler because your brain has a harder time telling the difference between something on a screen and something in real life. If anyone can prove they do look cooler, it's James Cameron. But I'd be surprised if even he can make films seem just as magical after removing the cinematic veil. But it had better be a huge improvement, because if not, HFR being the standard will make movies a lot more expensive to make. Sets, blocking, and lighting effects that make something look alive and real in standard FPS look really fake in HFR, and effects that don't look fake will be more expensive. Which means we get even fewer risks taken and even more dominance of expensive blockbusters. It's the same as has been going on in video games. In 1997 you could make a game, sell 50,000 copies and make a profit. Now you need to sell a million, so companies have only been going with the proven formulae instead of the wild experimentation we got in 1997 and now only get in small indie games. Hollywood is risk-averse enough already. Also, something that harms a lot of major movies is that directors haven't figured out the best way to use their relatively new CGI toys yet. Usually they use it to add a lot of distracting flash to the background which takes your attention away from the actors and the drama of the scene rather than immersing you in it. Giving them even more toys will make that even worse, more films where the overly busy and flashy backgrounds distract you from what the actors are doing.
I liked Avatar on first viewing but I think that was clearly due to the tech. I can't make it through more than 5 minutes now on subsequent viewings. Saddened that TFA won't pass it globally, but very happy it was passed domestically.
Whilst TFA hasn't finished it's run in cinemas yet comparing the takings is interesting http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=avatar.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=starwars7.htm A quick scan TFA has down better in the following US&Canda UK And some of the differences in takings are massive some countries as it stands Avatar took circa US$100m+ more thanTFA in Australia Japan China France Germany was around US$90m more
Avatar really didn't trip my trigger, it's story was way too derivative and that same story was better served by "Dances With Wolves", it's depiction of the "military" was too one dimensional in comparison with Aliens, The story had enough plot holes to drive a bus through. To me, it was simply the eye candy of ground breaking special effects that was responsible for it's popularity. Now I'm sure the next one will make money, but if the story is again as creatively bankrupt as the last one..I don't hold out much hope for a third one.
Well, to be fair, you're comparing Avatar's total after 34 weeks in release - SW:TFA is just going on it's 4th week. (And yes, there's the ticket price increase since 2009 - but still, I think after SW:TFA has run its full course in the theatres, it'll have a worldwide gross that won't be topped until Disney release SW:8.) And BTW - I'm not that big of an SW fan, but hell, even I can see the trend. SW:TFA is going to blow the lid off with regard to worldwide boxoffice by an order of magnitude.
I didn't remember the main character's name. It could be the lack of sequels and very few merchandise or any other form of media. Nothing much to staple it to memories. I have another theory why Avatar is not as memorable as Star Trek or Star Wars despite it's monumental success. Sorry, it is extremely long. While Avatar is well directed by the very talented James Cameron with fantastic visuals and action, it lacked something. A common complaint is that Avatar is too familiar and predictable, but it is a movie long message, instead of a movie with a message. It is also rather political, and I will do my best not to tread on Neutral Zone territory. Also some of its themes contradicts our beliefs. Let me explain. While the themes "protect our planet" and "destroying another culture" are themes most of us can agree with, the whole anti-technology vibe is not. Along with the very standard, generic characters and story, we get a very anti-Star Trek message. Star Trek explores the human condition and shows the triumph of the human spirit in a Sci-Fi setting where technology is wonderful. In Star Wars and Terminator, technology can be beneficial but can be a danger. It also shows mankind can overcome any adversity. Star Wars, of coarse, has a spiritual theme too. These are the themes most can agree with. We are people and we hope for a better future. We embrace technology while trying to minimize the dangers it can bring. To me, Avatar's message is humans are basically evil, technology is basically evil, and nature is utopia, with all the subtlety of a sludgehammer. The Navi are oh so, mary sue perfect and our hero, Jake, rejects the evils of humanity to join them. In the end, our heroes won, and the humans and the Earth is doomed. The Navi or Jake never telling them to learn to respect the planet and they too can have a utopia. Nope, Earth is hopelessly lost. I know what it is trying to say. Some cultures are so different, they can seem alien to us. So here, they are made literally aliens. Don't destroy other cultures or the Earth. Instead of the human spirit overcoming obstacles, humans are the obstacle. We are our own worst enemy. A twist, but the movie is predictable, and characters are unremarkable. Basically, a complete opposite of Star Trek where we solve problems, respect other alien cultures, and advance our tech. The connection between the Navi and their planet is a physical connection and can be scientifically observed. In my opinion, this is a major misstep. It reminds me of adding midichlorians to the Force. The Navi's connection, like the Force, should be a spiritual, non physical connection. Something a character feels, not measured. The Navi can also come across as arrogant and xenophobic, and it is hard for me to relate to them. Characters, stories, and themes are so important. All that aside, it is still a very enjoyable movie, but for me, those things keep it from being memorable as Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Terminator 1&2, the first Matrix, and others. I remember (the movie often compared to Avatar) Dances with Wolves more. Even if it's made decades ago, I know the names of many of the characters. I know they are vastly different films with different goals and shouldn't be compared, but here's why I like it more. We explore a culture through interesting and relateable characters. The characters have curiosity and friendship. Unlike the Navi, we see good and evil on both sides. We see John embracing the Sioux culture, and the Sioux actually liking some American stuff, like John's hat, coat, telescope, etc. We see John's slow integration and relationships with multiple Sioux Indians, not just the main female lead. We see the best of humanity, how people can see past each other differences and how sharing can benefit everyone. We also see the worst of humanity. Evil indians and soldiers seek to destroy others who are different. Dances with Wolves is a fantastic look the human condition and into another "world".
Interesting that you mention LOTR, since Tolkien said that one of the themes of the book was anti-technology. http://www.engineerguy.com/comm/3547.htm
While I can understand how you might have gotten that impression, that's not how I saw it, and I certainly don't think it was the intention. Not all humans are depicted as evil, and most of the good guys are scientists, as opposed to military-mercenary-corporate bad guys. So in that regard it's pretty much along the lines how most fiction depicts the good and bad sides of humanity and its progress. Also, it would be hella-ironic if the movie that showcases advancements in digital filmmaking and computer graphics carried an anti-technological message.
Avatar didn't have an anti-technology message. You're conflating technology with the unfortunate circumstance that the bad guys had the better technology, and the aversion they brought to everything that came with them. The locals were OK with technology, they had theirs, they used ours – all of them, even the most prejudiced, picked radio coms at the end. They had been open to learning about it previously, it was us they had reservations about, not the technology. They mocked it only because it's what set us and them apart, and because we belittled what they had. The scientists eventually saved the day, and the avatars were arguably the highest form of technology shown in the film. There wasn't a single genuine anti-technology moment. It was actually a plot point that it was unfortunate that the locals mistrusted all of us. And arguably, one way to explain how all the creatures on the damn planet have a USB port is to assume they are all children of biotechnology, which may mean that the Na'vi were the more technologically advanced in the film, and they beat the primitive humans using the planet's biodefense grid which Jake accidentally activated.
Yeah, Avatar isn't anti-science or technology by any means. Its heroes are primarily scientists, it's pro-research and pro-curiosity. Hell, its primary plot device is a form of consciousness-transfer technology. What it's anti- is militarism and especially imperialism. I like that it makes a lot of people clearly uncomfortable that way, because that parable should be uncomfortable and the attitudes ascribed to the villains of the piece are very real and very familiar.
I don't have high hopes for an excellent or even thought provoking story, that's not Cameron. Cameron is a better George Lucas.. King of Summer blockbuster who is able to build worlds and amaze people but whose stories are pretty generic and just serve the visual spectacle (but he at least gets decent quality out of the actors and the story is watchable). If you accept this you will be entertained, if not you better wait to loan someone's BluRay for some Sunday afternoon watching.
I thought there was a very Star Trekian message in the movie. In fact, I thought it was the movies' most important message, that is, the idea that all cultures, all people, even those who are very different from us, are worthy of respect, Yes, the good old Prime Directive. in full affect.
For me, Avatar was anti-human, anti-technology at the ending of the movie, which is the impression that stayed with me after I left the theater. I think what would have helped if a few scientists would go back to home to save Earth with the knowledge they learned on Pandora. Whether they will be successful will be up to the population. And the Navi can ponder if their species will one day reach the stars as well. That would have given the film a more optimistic, Star Trek vibe. Otherwise it looks like to be happy, live without the souless technology. And, again for me at least, Lord of the Rings isn't anti-technology. Like Terminator and Star Wars, it has a cautionary vibe that technology can be harmful. As for the case of explosives and gunpowder, Gandalf and the hobbits use it for fireworks and entertainment. Saruman and the orcs use it to blow up buildings and kill people. We can create spaceships to explore the universe, but also can make killer AI / robots and planet destroying space stations. And to add to anti-imperalism, Avatar has an anti-corporate greed message, like in Cameron's Aliens. Where people kill one or a million for extra money.
I didn't see Avatar as anti-technology. It was more anti-greed, and anti military-industrial complex. The word 'Unobtainium' was not exactly subtle, they are 'Searching for that which is unobtainable'. Once they get the unobtainium, it won't be enough and they will want more and it will never be enough, and so on. The villains were put in a position by their business interests that they were forced to take what they wanted by any means necessary even if it means stealing and killing from the natives. Avatar is about where the desperate need to acquire at all costs leads us.
There will be a sequel to it, eventually. And it's airing on TV a lot (is seen on streaming services/rented a lot), so there should be people who remember it and like it enough. Not everything is immediate only a few years after.