I thought
AVATAR was okay. Just okay, though. Nothing more. Should it have been nominated for Best Picture? I believe that is debatable. I don't think it should've been, but I'm not a member of the Academy, so my opinion doesn't have a lot of weight. I will admit, James Cameron is a master filmmaker when it comes to the visual aspect of storytelling, and all you have to do is look to AVATAR or
TITANIC or
THE ABYSS for evidence that he knows how to wow an audience. Screenwriting, on the other hand, is not something that Cameron excels at, with AVATAR being the most glaring example of this. As I'm sure you've heard before, AVATAR owes a lot of its basic plot to
POCAHONTAS and
DANCES WITH WOLVES and, for a film in 3-D, none of its characters seem interested in being more than two-dimensional archetypes. Cameron deserves some credit for giving life to a rich and imaginative new world like Pandora, with all of its intricacies, but the plot itself is thin and has been done before with much more nuance and substance.
But everyone is allowed an opinion and it seems quite a few people fell in love with AVATAR, seeing as how it is now the highest grossing film of all time and won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Drama (which I thought should've gone to
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, but I digress). I'd like to emphasize the part about it being the highest grossing film of all time, because that small feat alone has altered the landscape of Hollywood and not for the better. It is no secret that AVATAR pulled in bookoo bucks because it costs more to see a movie in 3-D than it does to see it in 2-D and studio executives everywhere did not miss that memo. All of the sudden, everything from
CLASH OF THE TITANS to
MY BLOODY VALENTINE to
THE GREAT GATSBY is in 3-D and all because studio execs want to make a little extra cash. Make no mistake, converting a film to 3-D adds nothing to the storytelling of the movie and, for some, it is an annoying distraction, even causing nausea and headaches for some members of the viewing audience.
There is one important difference between AVATAR and the onslaught of 3-D movies that have assaulted the box office over the last couple years, and its that AVATAR was filmed for 3-D while the others, with few exceptions, were all converted to 3-D in post-production. This is a technical difference that very few people are aware of, but should be, because the quality of 3-D has a huge effect on your overall viewing experience, especially if it is a post-production conversion. Post-production conversions are a perfect example of a studio adding 3-D for the sake of adding 3-D and thinking with their wallets rather than thinking through the artistic value of such an egregious move. Christopher Nolan, writer and director of
MEMENTO,
INCEPTION, and the upcoming
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, refused to do 3-D for both INCEPTION and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES for creative reasons and has championed filming in IMAX, not 3-D, as the future of filmmaking because it allows for more detail on the screen. I'm a huge fan of Nolan and his work, and it is refreshing to see one director with the clout to stand up to the studio and refuse to participate in this growing fad.
So the next time you're at the movie theater and you find yourself having to choose between 2-D or 3-D, I urge you to go with 2-D and never look back. You don't need that third dimension and it isn't worth sacrificing your moviegoing experience just to line the pockets of some wealthy exec trying to cash in on a cheap trend, and I fear that MADEA GOES TO SPACE 3-D isn't far off...
First off, I would like to note that I loved Avatar in theater and was upset when I finally had to take my glasses off at the end. I was immersed into the movie in a way that I've never been and it helped me feel certain emotions that I didn't feel during Pocahontas or Dances With Wolves. I cried as my home was being demolished and my kinsman were slaughtered because I was truly in the film and I attribute that all to the use of true 3d in the way that Cameron made it (I watched it in 2d on my TV later and didn't feel the same).
ReplyDeleteNow, having said this, I am vehemently against this practice of making everything into 3d for the sake of making it 3d. If you want a film in 3d, make it in 3d like Cameron did it, because no film should be converted to something it wasn't meant to be. Shoot it and make it how it's meant to be seen and leave it at that. I personally think that having a 2d version of Avatar was a sacrifice in the integrity of that movie as so many people missed out on the experience because they opted for 2d. I will choose 2d over 3d unless someone comes up with another film that is made for 3d this way, as I feel it adds something special to the experience that no 2d film, even IMAX, can compare to.