Avatar and the Avatar Cadence (James Cameron, 2009-2031)

[feihong]

Chapo Trap House did an interesting read of the film as a kind of leftist analysis of imperialist exploitation. There they analogized the blowing up of the World Tree at the climax (spoilers for Avatar I) not as a direct reference to 9/11, but rather as a reference to the 9/11-level atrocities the United States commits in the world on a constant basis, in service of resource extraction, etc. I found it really compelling analysis, but when I went back to watch the film, armed with this new appreciation for its' potential subtext, I found it was still unbearable, just on the level of storytelling and cinematic style. And design. Those aliens are so goddamn ugly. Still steeling myself for re-viewing the movie properly. I haven't had a good go of my film reappraisals so far this year. Seeing Femme Fatale again convinced me that Domino is right about their every complaint. It was so awful. I kind of want to see The Phantom Menace again, even though I don't have high hopes for it. Watching this movie again will be like pulling teeth. But I intend to go through with it. I keep hoping the experience will change in some palpable way, kind of like how Starship Troopers became such a fascinating film once it was sufficiently distanced from the bizarre reaction against it––which I stupidly shared at the time––upon its' initial release. But most of these movies don't improve on a rewatch.

[zedz]

As I recall, a lot of people really were daffily intense in their love for this lousy film, and it was the whole kit and kaboodle: the technology and the world, and the story of the film and, I guess, the characters (were there characters?) - as rickety and third-hand as they all were. But people are always falling head over heels for crap like this, and I don't see any big difference between those who went gaga for Avatar and those who went gaga for Batman, or Star Wars, or The Matrix, or whatever the last / next mass market tentpole might be.

I think the big difference here, as Sausage pointed out, is that the fanaticism was short-lived, and Avatar rapidly fell out of the cultural conversation, so it will be interesting to see whether that initial enthusiasm can be rekindled. And I don't think that absence from the popular conversation is any great mystery: the property simply didn't keep current through sequels and spin-offs and diversified media in the same way most of those perennials managed to do. Even in the gaps between bouts of sequels, Star Wars never really went away: there were still Star Wars toys, games, comics, home video releases with all the attendant promotional puffery. I have no idea whether today's kids have even seen the original Avatar.

[Brian C]

It does still play on cable with some frequency here in the US, so someone is still interested in it. Granted, it's not at Shawshank levels of saturation, but still.

[Roger Ryan]

As far as immersive experiences go, while the first Avatar left me cold, I was completely enchanted when visiting the "Pandora" section of Disney World's Animal Kingdom, especially at night when skillfully-placed lights made those floating mountains and oversized plants seem especially unworldly. I have no desire to see the next five or six movies, but will happily return to Disney's Animal Kingdom where I can enjoy the atmosphere sans contrived plotting and weak characterizations (plus, it's got the best counter-service restaurant in the Disney parks!).

[swo17]

I intentionally watched Avatar after it came out in as far away from the intended experience as possible (in 2D, on the 2" screen of a Pocketdish) but subsequently came to appreciate the 3D format for other films. Is Avatar really any more immersive than, say, the Robert Ryan movie Inferno? Granted, there is a difference between natively shot 3D and films where the effect has been achieved in post-production, but within the former category, I struggle to see how Avatar provides a singular experience

[Roger Ryan]

... Granted, there is a difference between natively shot 3D and films where the effect has been achieved in post-production, but within the former category, I struggle to see how Avatar provides a singular experience.

Personally, I was far more wowed by the 3D effects in Scorsese's Hugo two years later and that was not just because I think its a better film in other respects. Whereas Cameron had endless swooping tracking shots and lots of flotsam and jetsam floating around in the foreground, Scorsese constructed his framing in layers, making it feel like you could enter into the screen to see more of the world it was showing you.

[swo17]

Right. To say nothing of experiments with the form by the likes of Godard, Ken Jacobs, or Peter Rose, which are really like nothing else out there

[hearthesilence]

Ken Jacobs's recent 3D short Double Wow was probably the most inventive 3D film I've ever seen while Goodbye to Language had probably my favorite use of 3D in a single shot.

[swo17]

Goodbye to Language had probably my favorite use of 3D in a single shot.

Which shot?

Sadly Peter Rose has not been able to find much interest in exhibiting his 3D work, but he sent me some digital copies and they're glorious

[beamish14]

I was really quite taken with the 3D in the IMAX 70mm presentation of Prometheus.

Despite being made 25 years earlier, the third Friday the 13th installment’s 3D impressed me far more than what’s in Avatar. You can’t beat some really well-conceived anaglyph 3D shots

[beamish14]

... Granted, there is a difference between natively shot 3D and films where the effect has been achieved in post-production, but within the former category, I struggle to see how Avatar provides a singular experience.

Personally, I was far more wowed by the 3D effects in Scorsese's Hugo two years later and that was not just because I think its a better film in other respects. Whereas Cameron had endless swooping tracking shots and lots of flotsam and jetsam floating around in the foreground, Scorsese constructed his framing in layers, making it feel like you could enter into the screen to see more of the world it was showing you.

It’s so frustrating how that film has almost become a footnote in Scorsese’s body of work. I think it’s probably the best thing he’s made in the last 20ish years

[hearthesilence]

Goodbye to Language had probably my favorite use of 3D in a single shot.

Which shot?

SpoilerShow

Where one camera does a 90 or possibly 180 pan while the other stays put, then the other camera pans back to its original position, causing a pretty mind-blowing image meld-effect. It's such a simple idea but it took a genius to not only think of it but use it in a skilled and deliberate way.

[captveg]

... Granted, there is a difference between natively shot 3D and films where the effect has been achieved in post-production, but within the former category, I struggle to see how Avatar provides a singular experience.

Personally, I was far more wowed by the 3D effects in Scorsese's Hugo two years later and that was not just because I think its a better film in other respects. Whereas Cameron had endless swooping tracking shots and lots of flotsam and jetsam floating around in the foreground, Scorsese constructed his framing in layers, making it feel like you could enter into the screen to see more of the world it was showing you.

Cameron is more of a natural when it comes to traditional shot composition / flow of sequence, which was the appeal of Avatar, as it was meant to envelop the viewer more broadly within the world. What the success of Avatar led to for a few years with Scorsese, Lee, Scott, Godard, Herzog, etc. using 3D for more subjective, strategic and personal use of the 3D space was often quite special. Unfortunately, the overly commercial interests for 3D with the tentpole blockbusters saturated the market, and it didn't help that those quickly moved to 3D conversion rather than true 3D photography, and was applied to films that were rarely shot with 3D in mind at all.

[EddieLarkin]

Much like the whole "fake 4K" scaremongering we get today, the whole "post converted 3D" fear was a load of bunk. Some of the best 3D films were post converted, such as Gravity, Pacific Rim, Guardians of the Galaxy 1&2, Mad Max Fury Road, The Walk, The Force Awakens, Ready Player One and Kong: Skull Island.

And the assumption that only the "real" 3D shot titles indicate the films were the director actually wanted the film to be seen in 3D is wrong too; James Gunn specifically stated at the time of the release of Guardians 1 that the post converted 3D version was his preference, implored people to see it that way, and that they intended to post convert from the outset, and so specifically shot it to work best in 3D.

There are some very blatant "pop out" moments in Force Awakens and Fury Road too that clearly indicate an acknowledgement of their planned post conversion. Ultimately post conversion became so good (and so comparatively cheap) that it didn't make much sense to continue shooting with 3D cameras. Instead a filmmaker that wanted to make a 3D film could achieve it perfectly adequately in post conversion.

Despite being made 25 years earlier, the third Friday the 13th installment’s 3D impressed me far more than what’s in Avatar. You can’t beat some really well-conceived anaglyph 3D shots

There's nothing anaglyph about Friday the 13th Part III. It used the same polarised method as Avatar (as did basically every historic 3D film).

[swo17]

Well yes, post-conversion did get better over time, to the point that when it's well done it's difficult to discern from the real thing. (Even Bi Gan used it for his 3D arthouse film.) I think we've all heard about films being forced 3D to cash in on the craze, though I suppose I can't name what those are off the top of my head

[Mr Sausage]

I don't know if this was the result of post conversion or not, but when my wife and I saw Jurassic World in theatres, the 3D made everything look like little models puttering around, such that the first grand, swooping shot of the park made me chuckle because it looked like a little model village being advertised with Wagnerian grandeur over the speakers. The 3D did that film no favours, effectively diminishing a movie about gigantic animals.

[MitchPerrywinkle]

Goodbye to Language had probably my favorite use of 3D in a single shot.

Which shot?

SpoilerShow

Where one camera does a 90 or possibly 180 pan while the other stays put, then the other camera pans back to its original position, causing a pretty mind-blowing image meld-effect. It's such a simple idea but it took a genius to not only think of it but use it in a skilled and deliberate way.

I only saw Adieu au Langage once in the theater with my brother. While most of the film remains a collection of scattered, fuzzily recalled moments and musings, I will never forget that particular shot and how discombobulated I initially was before my brother whispered in my ear to close one eye. Doing so and realizing what Godard was accomplishing with 3D was one of the most revelatory moviegoing experiences I've had in the last decade and single-handedly the reason the film was worth seeing in 3D on a big screen.

[EddieLarkin]

I should clarify I'm not saying a post converted 3D film is automatically good, but that it's not remotely as simple as drawing a line between "real 3D" and "fake 3D". The Amazing Spider-Man was shot with 3D cameras and apparently has very underwhelming stereoscopy, whilst the sequel, which was instead merely post converted, offers by all accounts a far superior experience. Much like with "fake 4K", people look for an easy way to outline where they should spend their money and as soon as they settle on a system they don't want to complicate matters further. The result being people will avoid 2K upscaled films that are released on UHD, despite there being plenty that offer a significant upgrade over the Blu-ray, some to an even greater extent than some "real 4K" UHDs do.

[captveg]

You make great points, Eddie, that there were several conversion 3D films that took great advantage of the tech, primarily because these were still films designed/planned by their creators to do so. My point was more broad in that 3D being applied to all tentpole films made it hard for the audience to know what was worthwhile seeing in 3D and what was something that began to feel like price gouging. This ultimately diluted the interest. (I say this as someone who has bought every 50s 3D Blu-ray release).

[hearthesilence]

The price gouging was terrible. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a movie that sold out of 2D screenings, thus forcing you to buy an inflated ticket to a 3D one unless you were willing to skip the film, wait several hours or go the next day. (These were mainly movies that weren't my choice, stuff I normally go see with family or friends who weren't cinephiles.) In those cases, there was never a time where I thought it was great to see it in 3D - it was usually gimmicky and underwhelming or even detrimental. The dearth of worthwhile 3D films really made the 3D fad that much more regrettable. Hugo and Gravity were great in 3D though, but I chose to go see those in 3D from the start.

Also, I was under the impression that 3D sped up the transition away from 35mm...that would have happened eventually, but still, it's kind of a drag that happened right when I started going to theaters a LOT more often.

[yoloswegmaster]

A Chinese site has revealed that the runtime is at a whopping 190 minutes.

[Finch]

In that time, you could watch the first Terminator (IMO still his only masterpiece) twice over and still have more fun.

[Monterey Jack]

The Way of Water refers to the gallons of pee micturated by each audience member after leaving their screening.

[Kracker]

"after" leaving? no way people are going to be able to hold their bladders during a 3 hour movie called Way of Water

[Monterey Jack]

"after" leaving? no way people are going to be able to hold their bladders during a 3 hour movie called Way of Water