When it comes to opinions on movies, I would rather be a happy fool than a miserable genius.
I am definately in the "happy fool" category when it comes to Avatar.
the problem I have with many negative reviews is that they all seem to go into the cinema with a checklists and gives marks to different aspects of the movie as if it is an olympic sycronised diving competition.
Personally, I don't take a checklist with me. I just watch a movie and I enjoy it or I don't. When I watched Avatar, I didn't even notice it was like another movie. I didn't compare it to any other movie. In fact I wasn't thinking about any other movie at all because I was too busy enyoying the story, the characters and the World of Pandora.
In the end whether anyone likes a movie or not is a matter of perspective. Avatar, had all the elements that I want to see in a movie. For me Avatar is unique because it is nothing like I have ever seen before. I don't care if it is like this, that or the other film. It is irrelevant, at least to me.
Everyone is different. We all have different perspectives. We all have elements that appeal to us or put us off. Many of these things will be influenced by our experiences in life, the people we know and the places we have been. So it is ludicrous for any person to make a jugement on someone elses perspective just because it is not like their own.
Another common characteristic of negative reviews is to somehow claim the intellectual high ground. As if having a negative opinion somehow shows that they are somehow intellectually superior to those who like the movie. I'm sorry, but expressing a dislike if Avatar does not make you look more intellectual. At best, it shows they have a different perspective, opinion and taste in movies from those who like the movie, which of course is completely valid. And at worst, it shows them up to be prententious and arrogant.
So I much prefer to be a happy fool who loves Avatar, rather than some self professed miserable genius wollowing in his own mediocre psuedo-intellectual garbage. However, I do recognise that not all people who dislike Avatar are like this. But a lot are.
Now that is 'proof' that Avatar is c***p. What a nerd!!!
"At a trade show I just saw a JVC Pro (commercial) 46" panel (GD-463D10) that displays 3D (over HDMI 1.3a) that can be seen using circular polarizing glasses (passive) rather than active at a cost of < USD 5K. The panel has a circular polarizing filter laminated to the glass. So you see a 1920 x 540 image per eye, 1920 x 1080 total. (The active glasses give 1080 alternating for each eye.) The thing is you can buy cardboard polarized glasses for < $1 each. This would be great for schools where an entire class could be issued glasses for very little money.
But even MORE amazing was JVC's IF-2D3D1 box that converts a 2D BD signal to 3D on the fly! JVC was displaying a 2D National Geographic BD on Ireland in 3D. Yes, there were artifacts in the picture, but it can be adjusted for parallax and 3D intensity depending on the source material. The cost of the box is USD 33K, which would be cheap for a cable company to convert existing 2D HD source material, or maybe even a bar that had only occasional 3D access but wanted the customers to see 3D all the time.
Consumer 3D has, by agreement, been limited to active glasses by way of HDMI 1.4. But this 46" monitor looked darn good with the cheap cardboard glasses. I want one!
Also just saw a presentation by the RED video camera folks of footage taken with the original RED One camera upgraded from the original 4K chip to the new 5K M-X chip. Stunning resolution. The comparison was made that the USD100,000 Sony F25 HD camera is like 16mm film as compared to the USD35,000 RED M-X which is like 35mm film. The presenter had a working prototype of the RED Mysterium camera which is a 5K video camera that weighs 5 pounds total and is the size of an oversized SLR. When this thing is used for 3D instead of Cameron's twin 1920 x 1080 set-up, all films (using the term loosely), including 3D, will be sharper than ever in the theatre. The upcoming film "Social Network," about the founders of Facebook, was shot with 6 RED M-X chipped cameras. Sample scenes projected in HD today looked excellent."
Yes, but all of the things I have listed previously are problems. Why do people give more consideration to the technology used to make and view a film, than to the film itself? George Lucas was handbagged when he made Star Wars Ep. I-III because the technology used appeared to be more important than the story (and all of the other things that make a great film). This isn't being miserable, it's called being objective about a film and not 'fooled' (maybe not a great choice of word) by the marketing department who tell you it's great. Would Glitter (awful film, Mariah Carey, never speak of it again) be a great film if it was in 3D, with complete CGI environments and characters?
In the end, many negative reviews do have a whining depressive tone to them. Especially when part of there argument is "I can't understand how anyone likes this movie...etc" argument. Their negative review seems to complain as much about people whom like the movie as the movie itself.
I don't know about others, but I didn't watch the movie because of the technology marketing. In fact I knew nothing about the technology used before seeing the movie. The reason I found out how Avatar was made was because I liked the movie and wanted to find out more.
To be honest I still don't know that much about the technology. What you say may be right or may be wrong. But it doesn't really impact at all on how I see the movie. So to say I was fooled by the technology is mistaken, at least in my case.
The truth is your title was emotive and was always going to get criticism. If you just simply had the title "Why I don't like Avatar" or "Why I think Avatar technology is overrated." That would be a different discussion completely, and probably more interesting.
When it comes to unimportant things in like like movies, I believe everyone has a right their opinion. And if that makes me a "fooled" "Nerd" because the movie is "cr*p", then so be it.
Hey that sounds like the sort of movie that most of the Avatar haters wanted to see.
I have to admit that Cameron did manage to whip some money out of this sexless ex-Dungeon & Dragons enthusiast nerd. And I loved every second and it was worth every penny. Thank you Mr Cameron, please give me another.
"...so we can choke some money out of some sexless nerds and dungeons and dragons enthusiasts"
Wow. He sure did that, didn't he. Guess you can fool all of the people all of the time. Or, maybe...
Sort of reminds me of the coin-tossing scene from Tom Stoppard's brilliant play Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead where they realize that THEY are the ones outside of probability AND NOT EVERYONE ELSE. THEY are the odd ones out.
People don't 'give more consideration to the technology used to make and view a film, than to the film itself', it's simply that they like the film in the first place and would wish to view it again in the most appropriate and technologically up-to-date media. Anyway, if some people were (possibly) amazed by the technology does it really matter as long as they enjoyed the film.
I'm no technical expert like Bob but I'm sure that he does not consider all the things he (not you) listed to be problems but, rather, enhancements to a film that is widely admired.
I have never been a Star Wars fan so I can't comment there; I'm a 'Trekkie'.
You nearly fooled me there: I thought you were at last offering something original and interesting with your lengthy comments but on closer inspection I saw that they were simply a verbatim repetition of comments made by Bob. Shame on you but top-marks for effort. It must have taken you ages copying all that down.
The marketing department can sing the praises of Avatar all they want but, in the final analysis, it's public opinion that counts. A super-hyped marketing campaign cannot disguise a 'turkey' and fool people into thinking it's something exceptional. If it's as atrocious as you suggest they would soon shun it. But it's not and the fact is that it is widely liked and has much to commend it other than the hype. Anyway, I pay no attention to all that twaddle.
The appreciative audience of Avatar were not fooled just because they suspended disbelief and entered the beautifully rendered and immersive world of Pandora. They were stunned and amazed maybe, but never fooled.
The ayes have it and you're about as objective as an ingrown-toenail.