Blue Dudes

The Cineplex isn't for me anymore.

I liked Avatar. It was a visual buffet, a unique movie going "experience", and sufficiently entertaining (I guess that's the point). But after spending $18 and struggling with my Buddy Holly RealD glasses for 3 hours, I felt a little… empty.

I haven't watched any behind the scenes footage or listened to James Cameron on the topic, but some have proclaimed: "this will change filmmaking forever." Technologically, yes. Maybe. It will give the studio with 400 mill. to spend on production and marketing a blueprint (no pun) for creating tent-pole action fantasy fare in 3D Imax. But I've seen great animation before. I've seen stunning video game graphics. And I've seen interesting storytelling. Avatar brings some of these elements together and (the 3D incarnation) creates almost a separate niche for itself. It lies somewhere in between the Mall and Disneyland Drive.

Who am I to rage against the 3D marvels (or try to save a few recession-bucks with 2D). So, I enjoyed the world of Pandora and the Na'vi in 3D. I didn't want people to think I was lame or old school. The creatures were something new, and the motion capture used to bring them to life was impressive. But the flora and fauna were so colorful and interesting I wanted to toss my glasses off and simply look at the full resolution, plain vanilla 2D image. When Jim C. could keep the camera still for 2 seconds you could see a crisp, layered 3D image with depth of field that looked like it could be "real". But as the camera swooshed around, I found that only one object was in true focus and the rest of the frame looked smashed together, a ghosted blur. Then I would close one eye. My eyes are doing are the damn work anyway. I guess that's why some of my friends complained of headaches and I saw an older asian woman walk out after about 10 minutes. It's just hard to look at for an extended period. And when objects thrust at you from the background: like the butt of a gun, an arrow, etc. it's not fooling anyone. It doesn't look real, and reeks of a technological whack off. Just because you can do it doesn't mean…. It's not a perfect technology by any means. My instincts were right. I think a 2D version will be more immersive. I will get a full rez, full contrast picture, not the polarized dimness the glasses create. I won't be constantly distracted by reflections in the glasses, hovering heads, and ghostly particles. I like the Haunted Mansion better.

I'm not going to get into Avatar being racist, (or that it's been called Dances with Wolves in 3D) or whatever. I don't think you go to this film for ground breaking story innovation. You go for the visuals and to be entertained. The rub of it is, when a studio (a corporate entity, with stockholders) is investing 400+ mill to shoot and market a film they don't want to experiment too much with the screenplay. It ceases to be an artful pursuit at that point. They want results. Also, on a global scale a white male is the most marketable "hero character". It's a business decision, bottom line. But, while I think the story had a tough road to innovation, it didn't need to be this predictable. Why regress into convention? The idea of the Avatar was similar to being "jacked in" (the Matrix), but still compelling enough. But why are the Na'vi helpless without the aid of a white man and a magical God to save them? Their world is far more bio-chemically advanced than Earth. Why can't they defend themselves with something more than a poison tipped arrow? And why does the penultimate scene have to boil down to a literal mano y mano fist fight between the earthen liberal and redneck conservative. Maybe a virtual fist fight, but a good vs. evil brawl nonetheless. The Colonel is not even the correct villain. It should have been Giovanni Ribisi's character. Oh yeah, the suits don't fight.
I felt like I was watching the end of Iron Man, or District 9, or…fill in the blank.

But film is for the masses.