Why Ebert Hates 3-D

[Cracker Funk]

If you don't mind me saying Cracker F, everyone whom suggested I should watch Avatar did so because of the visual and not the story. And I live in the LA area. All of these folks who suggested to see the film were split about the story, they either felt it was good or fair (no one said it was a bad story though).

Obviously 3D will be in the theaters for a while. How long? I couldn't tell you and anyone’s opinion is just a guess because it’s up to the public to decide. For the many years I've been on this earth I tend to agree with the theory, "History always repeats itself".

So I will agree with Roger on his points which started this article in the first place.

Of course I don't mind you saying that -- this world would be a boring place if we all shared the same opinions. I'm afraid the fact that your friends live in the LA area doesn't carry much weight. To be frank, I feel like most people have completely missed the point with "Avatar". They talk about the military pushing out the indigenous people. But that's not the story. The real story is of Jake Sully's transformation. Everybody's favorite parts of the movie are the middle part, when he is learning to become Na'vi. But then when you ask them to discuss the story, they talk about the military, and the cheesy dialogue (there is a lot of bad dialogue, but really only between the military-people).

Everyone doesn't like this movie equally. But let's not forget that birds of a feather flock together. My point is that it's not surprising that your circle of friends all share similar opinions. I know a lot of people who love this movie to death, and yeah, we like the visuals and the action, but it's the story that we fell in love with. Also, I'm a bartender, so I hear what the quote-unquote general public is talking about. During December and January, "Avatar" was all people were talking about. True, the number-1 comment is how beautiful the visuals were, but a lot of poeple talked about the romantic adventure.

Honestly, I just don't see how a 3-hour movie could make such a ridiculous amount of money, and have the best legs ever, without telling a good story. That just flies in the face of everything we all know about this medium -- you HAVE TO tell a good story to get people to come back and tell their friends to watch it.

By the way, am I reading between the lines correctly, in assuming that you haven't yet seen it? If that's the case, I recommend not renting it -- wait until the fall, when it will be re-released in 3D.

Oel gnati kameie, ma tsmukan.

 

[wridingrlm]

I saw it, here in the Cinerama Dome.

I'm just keeping my opinions about it to myself. Mom always said, "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all." ; )




Note: I will admit it wasn't a bad movie.

 

[Uranium City]

I'm just keeping my opinions about it to myself.

Nah, don't do that! SHARE 'EM! That's why we're here. That's why I posted the link in the first place.

 

[droowl]

All I can say is, "Right on."
I hate 3D. It made a terrible movie worse. I wouldn't have such a hatred for Avatar if it wasn't in 3D. It would be just another movie that I don't care for. But because of the 3D, I have an irrational hatred against it. Anyways, I actually agree with what he says about it not adding anything to the film.

 

[Cracker Funk]

It's okay, wridingrlm. For once, I agree with Uranium -- you should share your honest opinions. I love this movie a lot, but my feelings aren't going to be hurt because someone else thinks it's crap (especially since I happen to know that people who share my opinion are in an overwhelmingly huge majority). It's okay to be brutally honest, when critiquing movies.

EDIT: If I'm going to ask you to be brutally honest, I shouldn't be scared to do the same.

One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."

It is easy to despise what you cannot get.

I find it no surprise that the people I've run into who love this movie tend to be your average moviegoer. While the people I run into who despise it (and there aren't that many) have all been independent filmmakers.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"fair (no one said it was a bad story though)."

The screenplay for Avatar is complete garbage.. The absolute only reason to see it is the cool visuals that almost make you forget the story is the quality of a second rate lifetime movie.

Avatar may be the most overrated, overhyped movie in the historuy of filmmaking.

 

[Tinalera]

"fair (no one said it was a bad story though)."

The screenplay for Avatar is complete garbage.. The absolute only reason to see it is the cool visuals that almost make you forget the story is the quality of a second rate lifetime movie.

Avatar may be the most overrated, overhyped movie in the historuy of filmmaking.

What didn't you like about the story? (I haven't seen it yet)-did it not make sense? Just wondering what it was

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

What didn't you like about the story? (I haven't seen it yet)-did it not make sense? Just wondering what it was

The noble savage natives are perfectly good. The evil corprate exploiters are perfectly bad. The ever so likeable hero has a change of heart after being around the ever so perfectly good noble natives. The hero does improbable things in his avatar body (surpassing the physical abilities of creatures who spent a lifetime in that body, you know their own body). It's what would happen if greenpeace got together with Lifetime to make a Disney movie. Smarmy, cheesy, 2 dimensional crap. Wrapped in a big glittering eye candy package.

 

[VPTurner]

The noble savage natives are perfectly good. The evil corprate exploiters are perfectly bad. The ever so likeable hero has a change of heart after being around the ever so perfectly good noble natives. The hero does improbable things in his avatar body (surpassing the physical abilities of creatures who spent a lifetime in that body, you know their own body). It's what would happen if greenpeace got together with Lifetime to make a Disney movie. Smarmy, cheesy, 2 dimensional crap. Wrapped in a big glittering eye candy package.

But the question you must ask, what made it such a phenomenal commercial success? It wasn't just the eye candy.

And the storyline is nothing new. Dances with Wolves has a similar storyline, one that is rooted in actual American history. Perhaps it's those undertones that resonate with the audiences?

Jake is the underdog. He transcends his handicap; he's tired of doctor's telling him what he can't do. That level of perseverance inspires. Who in a wheelchair hasn't dreamed of walking again?

Like it or not, it made the studio a ton of money and it pioneered several new technologies that will evolve the entertainment landscape for years to come.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"But the question you must ask, what made it such a phenomenal commercial success? It wasn't just the eye candy."

Mostly, yes, it was. It's the only reason i saw it. It's the only reason most people I know (over the age of 10 ) saw it.

I imagine it was written on a 3rd grade level because that's how you make a huge international blockbuster. When a story has depth, three dimensional characters, a plot that hasn't been rehashed 5000 times, it's less likely to cross the cultural divides and and appeal to a broad worldwide audience. I understand why they did it, I understand why it was a success, and more power to him. I wish I was cashing those checks. It just drives me crazy when people pretend it's more than what it is. It's not high art, it's not even a very good film in any respect EXCEPT that it's visually pretty cool. It's a snickers bar, all ooey gooey and sugary sweet. Boy it sure tastes good, but if you try and live on them you'll shit your intestines out and gain 500 pounds.

 

[VPTurner]

"But the question you must ask, what made it such a phenomenal commercial success? It wasn't just the eye candy."

Mostly, yes, it was. It's the only reason i saw it. It's the only reason most people I know (over the age of 10 ) saw it.

I imagine it was written on a 3rd grade level because that's how you make a huge international blockbuster. When a story has depth, three dimensional characters, a plot that hasn't been rehashed 5000 times, it's less likely to cross the cultural divides and and appeal to a broad worldwide audience. I understand why they did it, I understand why it was a success, and more power to him. I wish I was cashing those checks. It just drives me crazy when people pretend it's more than what it is. It's not high art, it's not even a very good film in any respect EXCEPT that it's visually pretty cool. It's a snickers bar, all ooey gooey and sugary sweet. Boy it sure tastes good, but if you try and live on them you'll shit your intestines out and gain 500 pounds.

But the dramatic techniques that are used most often are thousands of years old. Of course they've been rehashed 5000 times because they work.

I struggle with this every day I sit down to write. Do I take the cheap angle and go for the blockbuster with the big paycheck, or do I go for art and Academy recognition? I rarely see both. Right now, I am struggling to learn a genre I have yet to tackle, and that's horror. But I won't resort to cheap scare tactics or gratuitous violence and gore - I want characters that ring true and with whom audiences can relate. I've written and torn up more pages than I care to think about, changed my theme at least twice, and then took a big step back from it for the last six months so I can hit it again with a clean perspective. These big budget films don't have that luxury of time, waiting on a writer to make "art" and "originality". I often wish they did.

It seems the feeling you have with Avatar is similar to the feelings and opinion I had with Transformers. Those movies are nothing but visual orgasm, IMO. Iron Man II did the same thing to me. I was disappointed. But, honestly, the summer blockbusters have always been about the amusement park ride experience and rarely the artistic expression.

I've seen Avatar more than once now. And each time I watch it, I catch something I missed. There is more to it than the visuals. But perhaps I am looking at it from a different perspective.

To each his own.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

No doubt, he made the movie he was trying to make (one that will still fill the bank accounts of his great, great, great, great grandchildren). Like I said, more power to him. It's a "good" movie in a business sense, hell it's maybe the greatest movie ever, in the "business" half of the "Movie" "Business". I just get a little nuts when people pretend it's from an artistic sense any better than "Saw 3". On the "Movie" side of "Movie" "Business", it's about the level of your average 1985 made for TV movie.

 

[Tinalera]

No doubt, he made the movie he was trying to make (one that will still fill the bank accounts of his great, great, great, great grandchildren). Like I said, more power to him. It's a "good" movie in a business sense, hell it's maybe the greatest movie ever, in the "business" half of the "Movie" "Business". I just get a little nuts when people pretend it's from an artistic sense any better than "Saw 3". On the "Movie" side of "Movie" "Business", it's about the level of your average 1985 made for TV movie.

Hey! The 80's were a haven for Filmmaking and Art! I mean there's....um.....well there was......uhhhh....hmmm.


I liked "The Wraith"

Seriously, I do see both of the points here. I can empthaise Gonzo on a book level-I remember everyone talking about "Davinci Code"(book here-not movie), oh gods and goddesses it was spectacular writing, fabulous plotting, oh it was just simply THE BEST BOOK EVER WRITTEN(okay, some exaggeration, but the media ran with it)


I got through 5 chapters and put the book down and said....well, it wasn't very nice. I never finished it. And I didn't understand why there was the hoopla about it being 10000000 weeks on NY Times best seller list. At best it was a popcorn piece of fiction to me.

 

[Cracker Funk]

The noble savage natives are perfectly good. The evil corprate exploiters are perfectly bad.

Have you ever seen "Star Wars"? James Cameron didn't invent the good-vs-evil dichotomy.

The ever so likeable hero has a change of heart after being around the ever so perfectly good noble natives.

Uhh, yeah. That's the story, and this ain't the first time it's been told. I'm not sure how you use change of heart as a criticism.

The hero does improbable things in his avatar body (surpassing the physical abilities of creatures who spent a lifetime in that body, you know their own body).

The movie is a fantasy. Crazy, improbable things happen in fantasies. Do you nitpick "LOTR" or "Matrix" in the same way? Jake Sully is Toruk-freaking-Makto, a legendary Na'vi hero. Again, it's fantasy.

It's what would happen if greenpeace got together with Lifetime to make a Disney movie. Smarmy, cheesy, 2 dimensional crap. Wrapped in a big glittering eye candy package.

A lot of people like Disney movies. According to you, we're all idiots.

Look, maybe we're talking to different people. As in, you talk to your circle of friends, whereas I (a bartender), talk to a myriad of people from every walk of life. You're simply wrong. MANY people love this movie for the story. We love the fantasy of Jake Sully finding a new life in an exotic new world. We love the grand romantic adventure of him finding the love of his life, while becoming a Na'vi hero. In your judgement, that makes us all idiots. You can think that if you like. Or, you can just recognize that we don't all like the same stuff, and just cuz you don't see the value in something that we like, that doesn't make us brainless children.

 

[Tinalera]

Have you ever seen "Star Wars"? James Cameron didn't invent the good-vs-evil dichotomy.



Uhh, yeah. That's the story, and this ain't the first time it's been told. I'm not sure how you use change of heart as a criticism.



The movie is a fantasy. Crazy, improbable things happen in fantasies. Do you nitpick "LOTR" or "Matrix" in the same way? Jake Sully is Toruk-freaking-Makto, a legendary Na'vi hero. Again, it's fantasy.



A lot of people like Disney movies. According to you, we're all idiots.

Look, maybe we're talking to different people. As in, you talk to your circle of friends, whereas I (a bartender), talk to a myriad of people from every walk of life. You're simply wrong. MANY people love this movie for the story. We love the fantasy of Jake Sully finding a new life in an exotic new world. We love the grand romantic adventure of him finding the love of his life, while becoming a Na'vi hero. In your judgement, that makes us all idiots. You can think that if you like. Or, you can just recognize that we don't all like the same stuff, and just cuz you don't see the value in something that we like, that doesn't make us brainless children.

I was going to go into a "Pre-Post Disney/Pixar rant", but decided against it

I'm going to catch the movie on DVD this weekend-it will be interesting to see, after reading the different viewpoints, where it fits in for me.

I do wonder how much of the "glowing" reports of the movie came from the media, vs people who watched it. I do know after it's opening weekend the media were fawning all over it-how much of it had to do it being a Cameron film (in which the media CONSTANTLY reminded us that Titanic was also Cameron's work). If Richard Linkletter (I can spell his name) or David Fincher directed it, would that be as hyped?

I think we as filmgoers, whatever our view, have to be educated in seeing films for their own merit, not because media tells us.

I use "The Dark Knight" as an interesting example-never mind the Heath Ledger stuff, there was a very good(IMO) storyline and script that kept people going, though the Media did it's part by covering the Ledger angle from the beginning-but they DID go to a quality movie. They also went and watched Transformers the fallen, even though critics panned it.

What can I say, we can be fickle creatures

 

[Cracker Funk]

I was going to go into a "Pre-Post Disney/Pixar rant", but decided against it

I'm going to catch the movie on DVD this weekend-it will be interesting to see, after reading the different viewpoints, where it fits in for me.

I do wonder how much of the "glowing" reports of the movie came from the media, vs people who watched it. I do know after it's opening weekend the media were fawning all over it-how much of it had to do it being a Cameron film (in which the media CONSTANTLY reminded us that Titanic was also Cameron's work). If Richard Linkletter (I can spell his name) or David Fincher directed it, would that be as hyped?

I think we as filmgoers, whatever our view, have to be educated in seeing films for their own merit, not because media tells us.

I use "The Dark Knight" as an interesting example-never mind the Heath Ledger stuff, there was a very good(IMO) storyline and script that kept people going, though the Media did it's part by covering the Ledger angle from the beginning-but they DID go to a quality movie. They also went and watched Transformers the fallen, even though critics panned it.

What can I say, we can be fickle creatures

Box office results actually aren't very fickle at all. Big opening numbers can be attributed to:

1. Star Power
2. Sequel Power
3. Advertising Power

"Transformers 2" had all three of those magic money-makers. The actual quality of the movie matters not.

What you really want to look at is the way a movie sticks around. I don't mean to patronize anybody, but just to make sure we're all on the same page -- if a movie has a long shelf-life, it's said to have "legs".

Long legs are a reflection of positive word-of-mouth. Advertising, etc., will get people in the theater for opening weekend. What those people tell their friends will determine how the movie does in coming weeks. Most movies fall 50% on their second weekend. "Transformers 2" fell 61%. That's quite bad. "Avatar" fell 20%. That's unheard of. And then it continued to fall a measely 20% week after week, after week after week. In the modern era, this simply doesn't happen, and the only comparison is "Titanic".

You wonder who the "glowing" reports are coming from? That'd be everybody. Regular people love this movie. Snobby film-nerds seem to be the only group that isn't completely sold on it's awesomeness.

Please do not watch it on your crappy-ass tiny little TV. It will still be good that way, but that's not how it is best viewed. Wait until this fall, when it will be re-released in 3D.

 

[wridingrlm]

"If Richard Linkletter (I can spell his name) or David Fincher directed it, would that be as hyped?"

DING, DING, DING, DING! We have a winner!

Also......

If I took a dump in the toilet and threw a half of billion dollars in marketing (commercials, toys, clothes, etc., etc.) to tell the world that it was the best turd in the world. Not only would everyone be talking about my fine turd but some might even believe me.

 

[Cracker Funk]

"If Richard Linkletter (I can spell his name) or David Fincher directed it, would that be as hyped?"

DING, DING, DING, DING! We have a winner!

Also......

If I took a dump in the toilet and threw a half of billion dollar in marketing (commercials, toys, clothes, etc., etc.) to tell the world that it was the best turd in the world. Not only would everyone be talking about my fine turd but some might even believe me.

Exactly. But that only works for as long as nobody has seen your turd. Once the first group of people have been suckered into paying money to watch your turd, they will tell their friends that it is indeed just a big turd.

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely clueless about analyzing box office results if you think "Avatar" made 2.7 Billion dollars because of advertising. You don't have to like the movie, but you're no better than the fox calling sour grapes, if you think Cameron's success is due to advertising.

 

[wridingrlm]

"I'm sorry, but you are absolutely clueless about analyzing box office results if you think "Avatar" made 2.7 Billion dollars because of advertising."



Hahaha....... Yep, you're right.

 

[Blanc/Noir]

IMO Avatar was more of a visual experience. I do agree a bit with the simplicity of the plot but I still managed to watch it.

I feel like 3-d in movies is a distraction from what's actually happening.