Avatar (2009)

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

To give you an impression of how insane it is that it only dropped 1.8% after a 77 million opening...

I Am Legend which is the closest movie to Avatar in terms of release date/circumstances/identical opening weekend of 77m dropped 37% with 2 extra days added to its weekend.

With a 5 day weekend it dropped 37%. Avatar dropped 1.8% with a 3 day weekend.

To give you an impression of how this is doing worldwide, it's made $625M after just 12 days. In terms of pace that's nearly $200m ahead of any other movie during the same frame. It is also the first wide-release film in Russia to have less than a 50% second weekend drop...37% to be specific. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Fox kept having to revise their overseas estimates...first it was it made $100M 2nd weekend...and now it's $155M overseas.

Records just keep tumbling. This James Cameron fellow must be artificially playing with the numbers. Titanic? OK I'll give you that, random chance, great circumstances, big hit. BUT ANOTHER ONE BY THE SAME MAN?!

[Quintus 5,399]

I seeem to be the only person on this board who really disliked this movie. Me and my friends even call it Avaturd

Don't worry, others will join you, soon enough.

And Blum, why you so surprised? After seeing it, the figures add up exactly as I expect them to. Momentum is the word.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I seeem to be the only person on this board who really disliked this movie. Me and my friends even call it Avaturd

Merkel, I wouldn't be surprised if you and your friends wear black turtlenecks with bold square glasses and scarves and berets and tight jeans, who come to a movie theater with wine bottles and aged gouda.

I keed!

[Henry B 50]

Well, I got the same sour impression of the simplistic characters and plot, but then I asked myself, "Who the hell cares?" and marveled in the visuals, music and acting. Lots of great scene chewing, cliched dialogue or not.

http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2009/12/22/so-we-went-to-see-avatar/

[Morlock 11]

Definitely, you're 100% right. The sequence itself was drawn out to a point that it seemed to match, both in shot timing and in abstract resemblance, from an emotional perspective.

I also took that to be the implicit intent of the filmmakers. And it is a prime example of how the context is secondary in this film. The image is overpowering. The context is a repositioning of history. Only by admitting that the power of the image outweighs the context could I come to terms with that sequence.

[Uni 306]

Trumpeteer! Haven't caught up with you in quite a while, buddy . . . nice to see you in here again.

Y'know, Lee . . . I hadn't noticed it until your post on story simplicity, but when you put your mind to it, you have a good way with words. That was well written--and accurate, too, at least in the broad sense. (I can't apply it to Avatar, of course, until I see the damn thing. . . .)

- Uni

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Avatar's boxoffice gross dropped an unprecedented 1.828%. That's unheard of in this boxoffice climate.

It's just the people who missed it the first week because of the snowstorm are catching up.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Your mom missed me during the snowstorm and is now catching up.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

She works for the government. You are suspected...

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Lee - who was more blown away back in '93 than he was in '09, but maybe it was because he was still only a little tike in those days.

Because '93 was a milestone whether '09 is just another step in development. Regardless of what cameron thinks.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Lee - who was more blown away back in '93 than he was in '09, but maybe it was because he was still only a little tike in those days.

Because '93 was a milestone whether '09 is just another step in development. Regardless of what cameron thinks.

From what I've heard, it's a milestone and a step in development, just like two movies that helped bring the technology along to make JP what it was - coincidentally, two movies by James Cameron (THE ABYSS and T2). To the general public, it seems to have had the same effect as JP, but the public are great at recognising when they think something has reached the point where it's celebratory, while ignoring the general worth of what went into making that happen (also why THE LAST STARFIGHTER and YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES are only really milestones to the geeks and the people who work in the industry.)

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Any movie with that much money and time to finish the special effects would have made effects as good as these.

its just the 'natural' evolution, i dont say it cannot be a milestone in the way its been filmed or the processing of the 3d, but people do not see that on the movie.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Any movie with that much money and time to finish the special effects would have made effects as good as these.

its just the 'natural' evolution, i dont say it cannot be a milestone in the way its been filmed or the processing of the 3d, but people do not see that on the movie.

Not true. Not true at all. Filmmakings technological breakthroughs are not natural, they are not easy. They are forced upon us by someone with a dream.

There are few filmmakers dedicated to the craft, not art, but craft of filmmaking as Cameron. Spielberg could have taken his time with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and come up with something outstanding but didn't because he is not as dedicated a filmmaker at Cameron, he could be bringing us something groundbreaking with Tintin, but it will be something we've seen in any Zemekis film. Michael Bay had nearly as much money for Transformers 2 and he came up with a film that is terrible in acting writing directing, plot, music, the only thing he somewhat succeeded in was the effects, and even those are confusing.

[Quintus 5,399]

The force is weak with you, Skywalker. Make no mistake, Avatar is just as much a landmark as Jurassic Park was, back in '93. In fact it may yet prove to be even bigger than it.

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Yep. Bigger in boxoffice. That is all what counts , isn't it.

In alltime list there are masterpieces of cinema like Potters, Pirates , Lotr maybe some Spidey , Wow.

Sometimes it feels like some of us have spent their personal money to this production, so hard is

their defending for this average(but gorgeous looking) movie.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes a film needs to be seen by many, to make any real impact.

[Ollie 1,059]

Yes box office does matter, not all the time but it does matter.

Cameron may not be the greatest script writer but he will put all the effort he can into delivering a quality product. He may be a task master on the set but there is no denying the effort he brings to his films.

[Quintus 5,399]

Yep. Bigger in boxoffice. That is all what counts , isn't it

Actually I was referring to cultural and filmic impact, but if you want to talk boxoffice, that's fine too, isn't it?

One thing's certain: nobody is defending Avatar (it doesn't need it anyway), but some are definitely attacking it and maligning those who enjoyed it. Methinks you got a silly little grudge against the movie and it's likers, heh heh. That's fine too. In your world I guess it is. Whatever floats your boat etc.

Lots of great scene chewing, cliched dialogue or not.

Ah good 'ol scene chewing. I like scene chewing.

[Uni 306]

Any movie with that much money and time to finish the special effects would have made effects as good as these.

its just the 'natural' evolution, i dont say it cannot be a milestone in the way its been filmed or the processing of the 3d, but people do not see that on the movie.

Both of these are patently ridiculous statements. Good effects aren't like wine--the more time you give them to ferment, the better they'll be. They require solid planning and a clear understanding of their purpose in advancing the story. Too many effects houses (and directors) are too interested in the flash factor alone. Given twenty years and an unlimited budget, they would still screw it up.

And there's no such thing as "natural" evolution here. Every development requires intent, focus, and clear design. We may not see precisely how Cameron has created and implemented the latest advancements in every frame of the film, but he's just the kind of director who likes it that way. He understands that the effects are a secondary element to the film, not the primary reason it exists.

- Uni

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

He understands that the effects are a secondary element to the film, not the primary reason it exists.

- Uni

that's is what he says, to look good in front of anti-sfx people.

But the fact is most of the talk he had about the film makin of i how amazing his effects were...

Any movie with that much money and time to finish the special effects would have made effects as good as these.

its just the 'natural' evolution, i dont say it cannot be a milestone in the way its been filmed or the processing of the 3d, but people do not see that on the movie.

Not true. Not true at all. Filmmakings technological breakthroughs are not natural, they are not easy. They are forced upon us by someone with a dream.

There are few filmmakers dedicated to the craft, not art, but craft of filmmaking as Cameron. Spielberg could have taken his time with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and come up with something outstanding but didn't because he is not as dedicated a filmmaker at Cameron

At least Spielberg does not chose crap composers.

And please, put another example. If KOTCS had been a SFX groundbreaking film, more people than now would hate it for not trying at all to look like the old films. That is one of the main complaints about the actual movie.

[Quintus 5,399]

Bless the fanboys of this world

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The only true judge of a film is time. The movie's been open for a couple of weeks.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Bless the fanboys of this world

Believe it or not, you are acting as an Avatar fanboy.

So let me laugh my ass too.

[Ollie 1,059]

At least Spielberg does not chose crap composers.

James Cameron does not choose crap composers either.

And I hope Spielberg wasn't the one to sign off on Jablonsky scoring Transformers or was one of the people who picked Zimmer for head of Dreamworks music dept. Oh wait.....

And please, put another example. If KOTCS had been a SFX groundbreaking film, more people than now would hate it for not trying at all to look like the old films. That is one of the main complaints about the actual movie.

If KOTCS had groundbreaking SFX I would be happy instead of that fake CGI look the prequels had. I think that's what most people's complaint was.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

James Cameron makes you feel as though you've gotten your money's worth 2 1/2-3 hours later. And you have. You can tell that a shit ton of effort and love has gone into the epic you've just seen. It may not be one of the greatest films ever, but it was one hell of a ride.

KOTCS was dull and mediocre. An average action/adventure movie that strayed way too much from what made its predecessors great. There was clearly no heart in it. Indy was upstaged by a kid, he didn't use a gun outside of that one lame scene, an empowered WOMAN with a sword was his adversary (Dear Indy, remember how you deal with sword-wielding foes? Thanks, the bored viewers of KOTCS), silly CGI alien with spaceship at the end. I didn't even mention most of the stuff that really pissed people off. It was a dumb family movie with Harrison Ford. Cameron's never put out anything that mediocre and ridiculous. It'd be almost like making that sequel to Titanic from the YouTube parody trailer. Spielberg said the movie was dedicated to the fans and then he lets Lucas go to town with all these insane ideas to destroy it. What is that all about? I don't even want to believe any of it was Spielberg's input. Jesus. He should be ashamed.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Luke, you're digging yourself into a ridiculous hole. You're making me want to defend Cameron, and I don't even like the guy's movies that much. Bringing KOTCS up here is like going to a Beatles forum and bringing up Wings, and that's from someone who doesn't hate it as much as most. And labelling Horner and Silvestri as bad composers is just ill-informed.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

it was joe how metioned KOTCS.

And i was just talking about Horner.

BTW, compared with Williams both are rather mediocre nowadays.

But it seems that for some people its the other way arround, sadly.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

it was joe how metioned KOTCS.

And i was just talking about Horner.

BTW, compared with Williams both are rather mediocre nowadays.

But it seems that for some people its the other way arround, sadly.

I brought it up as a fair comparison, but you had to get all upset about it.

It's a fair comparison because 1. it was in preproduction virtually for years and years. 2. Spielberg is the only director comparable to Cameron in terms of action/adventure. 3. Spielberg had all kinds of assets available to him in preproduction, production, and post-production on this film. I also mentioned Michael Bay when in that post but since your not a Bay fan like you are with Spielberg you didn't bother to defend him. You were not talking about Horner. Your initial argument was that this was just evolution in film technology and it could have/would have happened with or without Cameron's effort and that is just not accurate.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

You were not talking about Horner.

yes i was, when i said cameron chose crap composers. I forgot silvestri did the abyss.

Regarding Bay, Cameron is infinite times much better director than him.

I did not get upset about KOTCs, it was an unfair comparison since it regardless of its long production it was never scheduled as the next best thing since sliced bread in Special effects. In fact they wanted to make it in the old way, and in the end they failed misserably in that regard. The SFX are perfectly fine though, i mean it does not look like a 80s movie, 90% of the time.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

You were not talking about Horner.

yes i was, when i said cameron chose crap composers. I forgot silvestri did the abyss.

Regarding Bay, Cameron is infinite times much better director than him.

I did not get upset about KOTCs, it was an unfair comparison since it regardless of its long production it was never scheduled as the next best thing since sliced bread in Special effects. In fact they wanted to make it in the old way, and in the end they failed misserably in that regard. The SFX are perfectly fine though, i mean it does not look like a 80s movie, 90% of the time.

luke, you're mistaken, my initial reply to you had nothing to do with Horner, look back and you will see you are wrong. It was your comment about it being the "natural evolution" that caused me to reply.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

You were not talking about Horner.

yes i was, when i said cameron chose crap composers. I forgot silvestri did the abyss.

Regarding Bay, Cameron is infinite times much better director than him.

I did not get upset about KOTCs, it was an unfair comparison since it regardless of its long production it was never scheduled as the next best thing since sliced bread in Special effects. In fact they wanted to make it in the old way, and in the end they failed misserably in that regard. The SFX are perfectly fine though, i mean it does not look like a 80s movie, 90% of the time.

luke, you're mistaken, my initial reply to you had nothing to do with Horner, look back and you will see you are wrong. It was your comment about it being the "natural evolution" that caused me to reply.

you said cameron put more effort in this movies than spielberg,

and i said that at least spielberg does not choose crap composers.

period, that's it.

I was responding to part of your answer ignoring the other parts. a thing you also do, and i think, i have learnt in this forums.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Regarding Bay, Cameron is infinite times much better director than him.

I would say that Cameron is a more agreeable director. I won't write off Bay, as he's done some impressive stuff. Although I dislike a majority of his movies.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

You were not talking about Horner.

yes i was, when i said cameron chose crap composers. I forgot silvestri did the abyss.

Regarding Bay, Cameron is infinite times much better director than him.

I did not get upset about KOTCs, it was an unfair comparison since it regardless of its long production it was never scheduled as the next best thing since sliced bread in Special effects. In fact they wanted to make it in the old way, and in the end they failed misserably in that regard. The SFX are perfectly fine though, i mean it does not look like a 80s movie, 90% of the time.

luke, you're mistaken, my initial reply to you had nothing to do with Horner, look back and you will see you are wrong. It was your comment about it being the "natural evolution" that caused me to reply.

you said cameron put more effort in this movies than spielberg,

and i said that at least spielberg does not choose crap composers.

period, that's it.

I was responding to part of your answer ignoring the other parts. a thing you also do, and i think, i have learnt in this forums.

luke, look at post #713, thats the post I keep referring to and you are ignoring and trying to deflect the argument. You're the one who got all pissy and couldn't stay on the argument instead you go off on a tangent. Other people took you to task for your stupid statement that I put in bold, until now I've never bothered to even mention it.

[Trumpeteer 302]

Jeff, give the score another chance, I find it magical, after first going hmmmmm. It certainly won't make your ears bleed like Zimmers two abomimable efforts this past weekend.

I don't know if I can give it another chance. With James Horner, his scores either grab me the first time (Aliens, Braveheart, Titanic) or don't (everything else).

I fear this score will win an Academy Award.

Uni, it's good to see you as well. I peek my head in here every once in a while, but will be more regular when John Williams decides to write another original film score. Until then, this board sometimes feels like going to work between Christmas and New Year's: It's not that bad being there, but there are better places to be.

[Datameister 2,044]

I saw the film last night. Ummm...as often happens with me, I think positive reviews set me up for disappointment. Oh, I enjoyed it all right, but it was not the transcendent experience so many have made it out to me. The CG was very good, but not significantly better than the current cream of the crop. In fact, the Na'vi looked less convincing to me than POTC 2's Davy Jones, the only living CG character thus far to actually make me seriously question whether I'm looking at a CG model, an actor with prosthetics and makeup, or some mixture of the two. I will say that Pandora in general was utterly gorgeous...really couldn't have asked for much more. The bioluminescent night scenes were particularly entrancing. Loved that.

The 3D was pretty bad, too, I'm sad to say. Especially after hearing that special care had been taken to make it more natural. For starters, at least with the glasses and projectors and screen I was viewing it with, there was a subtle but VERY annoying discrepancy in brightness between the two eyes, mostly just in highlights on people's faces. Extremely distracting. Nearly as bad was the fact that nothing extended very far beyond the screen. It was like looking at a flat movie in which a few elements protruded out of the screen a little, which translates to stereoscopic 3D at its blandest and least realistic. You're looking at vistas that are thousands of feet away, but the parallax tells you they're only a few feet behind the screen. I suspect they did this to eliminate the "ghosting" effects that can happen when two adjacent onscreen objects have very different depths (and especially if one is bright and one is dark). But they should correct that by getting the screens, projectors, and glasses to be more perfectly polarized, not by making the movie less 3D! My sister also pointed out the prominent use of defocused foreground elements in several shots, which is problematic if you try to focus on these closer objects, because you can't. I also noticed a 3D lens flare in one shot. All I can say is...what the heck? 3D needs to emulate human eyesight, not pursue cinematic aesthetics. That means fewer, longer, stiller shots...wide depth of field...no camera-based effects like lens flare...and allowing the background to actually recede into the distance the way it's supposed to.

But again, I did enjoy the movie. I just wish there was less about it that deserved picking apart.

EDIT: Oh, and regarding the score...sometimes compelling, usually generic, and always derivative, it's really all I could expect from Horner. I won't be buying the album, at least not now, though I did think about it. I just wish his work weren't tainted by the unpleasant taste self-plagiarism, since a lot of it is pretty good in and of itself. I certainly had the main Titanic ripoff theme stuck in my head for a while after I saw the film.

They should have gotten JNH to do it.

[MissPadmé 17]

hm Datameister.. I am sorry to say that you are all wrong.

not one point you claim is the truth, you are misguided and should be punished for not worshipping the devine recreation of the cinematic experience, that Mister Cameron gave us.

Shame on you, shame on you indeed...

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

You must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

hm Datameister.. I am sorry to say that you are all wrong.

not one point you claim is the truth, you are misguided and should be punished for not worshipping the devine recreation of the cinematic experience, that Mister Cameron gave us.

Shame on you, shame on you indeed...

By the power of christ, Joey (or Quint) go out of miss padmé body!

[Quintus 5,399]

Data, I personally did not have the brightness problems which you appear to have had and I've been twice, in two different cinemas, both times the 3D was incredible.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The movie will probably break the 300 million mark today. Transformers 2, your going down.

I saw no problem with the 3d, it wasn't the lets throw stuff at you kind of 3D it was the lets let the audience swim in the ocean kind. I felt the depth of the screen.

[indy4 155]

Will TRansformers still technically be considered the highest grossing film of 2009 since the year is over?

[Quintus 5,399]

Joey, you do of course realise that Manuel will regard your comment as nothing more than anti-Lucas, Cameron arse licking?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I'm not sure Luke, but either way I think it will still make more money than Transformers 2, the Worst Big Budget Movie of all time. Though Terminator 4 and Star Trek did give it a run for equally inane scripts.

[SF1_freeze 131]

Avatar was one of the best movies in recent years and the visual effects were top notch. I watched it in IMAX 3D and it was quite an experience.

Great and brave move by Cameron to not use close to viewer 3D effects. The 3D effects just supported the movie and it worked wonderfully.

I wasn't too impressed with the score and will never buy the album release although the music worked well in the movie. I just consider it weak if i can only barely remember a single motif/theme of the film (the Love/Ewya theme).

[Trumpeteer 302]

Datameister,

The 3D in Avatar was not created to have things jump out of the screen, but to create more depth in the background than traditional filmmaking typically does. I felt that the first second I saw Pandora.

as for the problems with both your eyes, it's likely you have astigmatism, or issues with one eye being more powerful than the other. One of the many people who wouldn't stop talking when I saw the movie said he was having a similar problem.

[Datameister 2,044]

The 3D in Avatar was not created to have things jump out of the screen, but to create more depth in the background than traditional filmmaking typically does.

Perhaps I was unclear - the problem with the 3D was that it did NOT create more depth in the background. The parallax never placed anything very far behind the screen, even though many of the scenes had backgrounds that were supposed to be thousands of feet away. Obviously Cameron didn't go with the gimmicky everything-jumping-out-of-the-screen-at-you approach; at this point, my default expectation is that directors avoid that tired approach. But this film had been heralded as a quantum leap in the realism and naturalness of stereoscopic 3D, and I simply did not see any hint of that. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my heinie...I actually do know a thing or two about stereoscopic vision, and as a result, I'm very perceptive of problems with it. I don't say that to boast; it's simply the truth.

as for the problems with both your eyes, it's likely you have astigmatism, or issues with one eye being more powerful than the other.

Nope. If that were the case, I'd see the exact same phenomenon in real life - the problem was that this looked different from real life. Also, I've been to eye doctors quite recently and I was not diagnosed with any such disorders. The problem was purely with the way the film

Again, however, it's possible that either problem could have been caused by the theater, not by the filmmakers. In fact, the brightness problem was almost certainly not the filmmakers' fault. It was just the way the projectors, screen, and glasses were working together to make parts of the image slightly brighter in one eye than the other. The depth issue could have been caused by the projectors not being aligned properly, though I'm not sure if that's possible with the setups these theaters use. But no matter whether or not the theater was having a problem, there simply wasn't much depth to the 3D. The furthest objects weren't much further than the closest ones. Again, I suspect this was an attempt to eliminate ghosting...or perhaps they were just concerned about people having to change the focus of their eyes more drastically. But that's something we do all day long. If the 3D is excellent, that shouldn't be a problem.

[Morn 8]

At least Spielberg does not chose crap composers.

James Cameron does not choose crap composers either.

Ohh? Explain James Horner then.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Brad Fiedel > John Williams.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

when James Cameron finished Terminator he was out of money, there was no money for a top notch composer and what Brad did was adequate given the circumstances. James used him for continuity purposes and Brad delivered a better score the next time around on T2.

Morn, Horner is a very good composer. He steals from himself no more than Jerry Goldsmith did, and even John does it all the time as well.

[Uni 306]

My turn.

Saw it today in IMAX 3-D. There isn't too much left that hasn't already been covered by one side or the other in this thread. I said early on that--well, it'll be easier if I just quote myself, back when I was talking about why I was so excited to see this movie:

Why? Because it's James Cameron. [And] because the man knows how to tell a story. He's never yet given me reason to distrust him. Yes, the concept is regurgitated and stale; yes, it's been done before. But . . . if there's anyone capable of putting new flesh on the tired old bones of a fossilized idea, Cameron's the one to do it. He's not only a truly gifted director, he's a phenomenal screenwriter and storyteller.

And now, in the aftermath, I can only say . . . I was right after all. He still hasn't given me reason to distrust him. He does indeed know how to retell a stale story in a spectacular and fresh way--though I would have to say that this ranks among his palest retellings yet. I can deal with a Pocahontas rehash to some degree . . . but did he have to make her father the chief? That was the one moment when the illusion, so skillfully woven to that point, faltered and faded for a minute, and I saw a bunch of Indians standing around gaping at the white guy. The fact that I became so suddenly and starkly aware of this demonstrates both that I had been completely enthralled up to that point (very much in Cameron's favor), and that he did indeed lose a step in not at least attempting to be original (certainly not a point in his favor). Some of the subsequent preaching had the same effect; when you lose moments here and there because you're rolling your eyes toward the ceiling, it saps some of the energy of the illusion. One particular line was so blatantly sermonastic that it took me a good minute or two to get back into the mood of things. (I'll abstain from quoting the line here--there's been enough vitriol spewed on this thread already to think inciting another debate is a good idea.)

But what others have said here is right: there's nothing wrong with a simple story well-told. I've been going through Jame Gumb's review of The Phantom Menace over the past few days, and given the choice between a classic (if slightly overdone) storyline and a nightmarishly stupid and brain-numbingly complex piece of "originality" (it had never been done only because no one would ever want to do that), I'll take the retread every time.

The performances were noteworthy. Though her turn as Uhura was a bit lost on me, Zoe Saldana so completely immersed herself in this role (without making it a self-absorbed, half-parody of the usual onscreen primitives) that I think she could be worthy of an Oscar nod. Sam Worthington managed to remain a sympathetic centerpiece throughout. The movie's most militaristic accuracy emerged in seeing Marine Corps training in every aspect of Jake's character arc, beginning to end. He never became so Na'vi that he lost his roots, and it was comforting to see him mutter a hearty "Hoo-yah" at the right moment. Sigourney was Sigourney, always at home in a Cameron film.

The CGI was, of course, phenomenal. I noticed that usual, slightly off-the-mark morphing in the faces for about three minutes, then never saw it again. Enough has been said about the flora and fauna, which was also jaw-dropping. What had the most profound effect on me, however, wasn't the bioluminescent landscapes or the fantastical creatures. It was the wide shots of the jungles and mountains, especially the floating versions. They were flawless. Not one pixel seemed gimmicky or cartoonish. Absolutely awesome. More than anything else, these vistas brought Pandora to life for me. (Especially in 3-D. I didn't notice the problems you mentioned, Datameister, except the foreground fuzziness of objects too near the camera. When our eyes can't shift those into focus, it breaks the illusion. If they could create 3-D that actually allowed us to make that shift . . . now that would be something, wouldn't it?)

As I've already mentioned, there's no denying Cameron has grown rusty in a few areas. There's the too-obvious chestnut of the savage-girl-whose-father-is-the-chief thing, and his ineptness in trying to communicate a message WITHOUT INSISTING THAT YOU UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT HE'S TRYING TO COMMUNICATE EVERY SECOND HE'S TRYING TO COMMUNICATE IT--GET IT? One other area in which he fell woefully short was foreshadowing. There are subtle ways, and there are obvious ways ("foretelling" instead of foreshadowing). He was too obvious this time around. Way too obvious. Predictability can be a fault; unavoidable predictability due to the telegraphing of EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN LATER is a vice. He's done better than this in the past. I wish he'd done better this time.

But most of these are issues that arise stronger after the event itself. Watching Avatar, I was reminded of my first viewing of Return of the King. As with the first two LOTR films, I was having some issues with the liberties Jackson and Co. had taken with the story; but these complaints came as distant, faint echoes in the background. I was too swept up in the epic scale of what was happening to nitpick the details. And so it was here. I may have been turned off by what Cameron was trying to say, I may have known exactly what was going to happen because he had tilted his hand an hour earlier, but as he was saying it, as he was doing it, I was silently cheering. There is simply nothing in the world like a great cinematic experience. When it's great like that, the ride is for the ride's sake. Flaws are for the ride home.

As for the score: I've been as ardent a supporter of Horner over the years as anyone. I've forgiven him his carbon-copying ways, because his music is good enough to overlook it on most occasions. But this time . . . it was just so obvious. So flagrant. Did he really have to cover so much familiar ground on this one? Glory, note-for-blessed-note? The Danger Motif? Braveheart at the end of all things? When I'm whistling along with a movie I've never seen before, it's a problem. He can do better than this. He's had the time. He can make the effort. I'm disappointed he didn't try harder. I did like the tribal jazz, but everyone's done that sort of thing (including Horner). The song at the end was worthless, a reminder that this stunningly alien environment was created with a stunningly pop-culture mindset on Earth.

By emphasizing many of the less-effective points here, I may sound a bit like I'm panning the whole thing. I'm not. I loved this film. I would definitely see it again. (I may, in fact, do just that. Soon.) I don't know that I'm willing to concede that this movie breaks as many glass ceilings as some of its creators and supporters were hoping it would, but as far as I'm concerned, given the current Hollywood outlook, James Cameron is still King of the World.

- Uni