A good time waster. I could probably re-watch it in about a year.

http://io9.com/5446538/everything-that-was-cut-from-avatar-sex-drugs-and-suicide

It’s interesting to see the differences from that and the final theatrical version. That would explain some of the scenes in the trailer. And yeah, probably not a good idea to look at it if you haven’t seen the movie yet.

So Avatar, the anti-corporate-excess, anti-unregulated-mercenary, anti-imperialist, anti-war, anti-materialism, anti-racism, pro-environment, sci-fi action adventure romance just passed $1.1 billion not too long ago (and stands as the fastest movie to hit a billion). Not too shabby, especially for sci-fi, which traditionally does not have wide appeal. I guess James Cameron knows how to make a movie.

Personally, I think Avatar is the best action/adventure movie I’ve ever seen. There, I said it. I think I’m a picky bastard, too. It easily tops Dark Knight for me, another movie that ranked highly with me. I loved Dark Knight, but DK is totally consumed by raw negativity (And I can be a jackass). There’s no rest, no break, no salvation. Just cynical bleakness. It’s a great window into the darkness, but as a result it just lacks balance, and that gets wearisome. I’m not surprised that men seem to favor DK more than women (in my personal sphere).

Avatar on the other hand has superb, technically accurate action (yet it’s an anti-war film; just like in Terminator 2, Cameron is so good at annihilating things while simultaneously being against it), but it also has a pretty well developed romance, for a movie that’s supposed to be action/adventure anyway. As Kim Masters of the Daily Beast wrote, “Cameron’s genius is this: He makes movies for women disguised as movies for men.” I’m sure the girls will say that it can’t match The Notebook or something like that (haven’t seen it, don’t want to), but that would probably throw off the balance for the men. But with the girl…er, female power, and the love story in Avatar, I’m not surprised that Avatar is doing quite well with women, probably not to the extent of Titanic, but still, I’ve heard plenty of women who want to and have watched Avatar multiple times.

Basically, the only way I can fathom someone not liking Avatar is if they hate fun and adventure—and love (or if one is diehard conservative, more on that below). If one finds such things abhorrent, then yes, Avatar is a bore. Hell, even A.O. Scott of the NYT liked it, and that mother is one of the snobbiest, high brow pro-reviewers I’ve ever seen. For the rest of us, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Avatar, at the moment, is the closest any of us ghetto 21st century folks will get to experience what it’s like to travel to another planet. You’re buying a ticket for an experience, a trip almost (especially when seen in 3D). Along the way, there’s a universally appealing story. So, relax, and enjoy the ride!

But is it just the effects, and the wonderful immersive 3D? I’m not sure anymore. I read an argument somewhere that movies don’t make over a billion dollars on effects alone, that Avatar is connecting with people at an emotional level somehow. I think I must agree. It definitely made me question whether I need to make so many unnecessary gadget purchases, and rekindled my doubt about the role of the cubicle in my life. Apparently, in China, some interpreted it as representative of the battle between real estate developers, and impoverished homeowners.

The most major initial criticism I hear is the simplicity of the story. Yes, it is simple, but it’s also epic, truly epic. “Epic” gets tossed around a lot these days, particularly with action/war movies, but Avatar is a true epic in the old school sense. Love, culture, and war. All in 2 hrs 40 minutes. It wasn’t totally predictable either, as some claim, especially towards the end. And it’s also complete. No further sequels are needed or alluded to. I’m actually hoping there won’t be any, because I wouldn’t want the franchise to be destroyed like so many others due to crappy sequels. While I love the characters in Avatar, their story is over. Unless Cameron can pull another miracle.

Besides, it’s how a story is told that is important. That’s all epic storytellers have really been doing for the last few millennia anyway, adding their own permutations to common storylines, or telling the same story, but better, like different productions of the same musical.

But I would also argue Avatar’s story is not significantly simpler than most movies out there anyway. I think it was just an easy aspect to criticize, especially by people I like to call the “nouveau intelligentsia,” who make the argument without really considering if it’s fair or not (especially Will Heaven’s poor argument that Avatar was racist, but more on that later). Because most movies aren’t that complicated, especially in the genre Avatar is in, and such movies definitely didn’t get as much heat. Success attracts disdain I guess.

Yes, in other movies, the dialogue can be more sophisticated, but unlike most other movies, Avatar pushes hard on multiple, relevant contemporary themes simultaneously (as previously listed). In this sense, I honestly think Avatar is actually quite sophisticated. Avatar tends to expound its themes through visuals, instead of telling through dialogue, letting the viewer stew on it later, like a painting (indeed one guy interpreted some 9/11 imagery that I hadn’t thought of, and that I don’t think Cameron intended, though he found it interesting). Of the recent “good” films I’ve seen lately, District 9, Dark Knight, Inglorious Basterds, Up in the Air, I think Avatar generated more introspection and personal thought. Basterds came close (but in a negative way. More in its own review). Up in the Air was an interesting character sketch, but hey, I’ve got my own issues to deal with, and if I want to waste my time to see you conquer or deal with yours, I’d only want to see it once.

Here, I stumbled across a well-written argument by an Amazon customer; I can’t really put it any better, so I’m just going to quote her:

You could boil the plot down to Dances With Wolves does Star Wars in Middle Earth, but that wouldn’t do real justice to this fantastic film. It follows an archetypal storyline (archetype, not stereotype), which may make it feel familiar (or trite, if you are looking for a plot twist a minute). Think Joseph Campbell: the Hero Journey (the basis of tales like Star Wars and LOTR). I think a familiar, archetypal, mythic storyline will draw much more of the audience into this fantastic world than a quirky tale with plot twists. Here in York County PA, tastes run to beer and blue jeans, and it’s hard enough getting them into the theater to see “some weird story about ten foot tall half naked blue guys”. Kudos to James Cameron for creating a tale with relevant issues (decimation of indigenous peoples, our overconsumptive culture, our relationship with tech and the natural world), awesome visuals, and universal appeal.

I’ve got to agree; I don’t think a jumpy or soapy plot would have been appropriate, nor would the sharper, snarkier dialogue of someone like…Joss Whedon. Cameron went for classic epic that appeals to children and adult alike, while hitting on relevant real-world topics, not “hey, that was quirky and interesting, but I have no intention of watching the movie again.”

And Avatar only seemed to get better with another viewing – if you were like me who was kind of cynical about the whole thing at first. From my first viewing, I came away liking the movie, but I was not amazed with it. However, the more I thought about it, the more it grew on me. Then I saw Avatar again and I was definitely hooked. The amazing visual effects definitely do the grunt work, but the attention to detail do as well, like the Na’vi language created by a USC professor, the alien flora and fauna, also created by a professor, and the raw emotion of the actors captured by Cameron’s upgraded mo-cap technology. You can see every expression that the original actor made, but on an alien body. No uncanny valley here. It really helped me empathize with these “space smurfs”, and it definitely put Zoe Saldana on the map for me.

Sadly, Avatar made me realize that there could be tons of talented leading ladies out there that will never get the time of day because of their skin color, unless they get roles like Neytiri. Other than films sketching minority life, how often do you see a colored woman in the lead actress role?

I suppose I should now mention the subset of conservatives that hate the movie for such themes. But they hate most things out of Hollywood, so I don’t want to waste my time. Besides, I think their complaints are legitimate, in the sense that it definitely crosses their ideology. Although I think the movie is less about anti-America, and more anti-Blackwater/Halliburton. And well, if you can still defend either of those, our ideologies are way too different.

Well before I write an actual movie review, I thought I’d throw this up after I went with some IMAX noobs at one of my viewings of Avatar…My friend’s friend waited over 3 hrs in line, alone, being about 20th from the front. What’s he do once he goes in? He sits 4 rows from the front bar. Which is good for a normal theater, but the front bar in a true IMAX is essentially the *very front* (as opposed to a LieMAX).  Head and neck aches ensued. From that position, the 3D didn’t sync on the far right and left unless you actually turned your head to look directly at it. I don’t fault him; he didn’t know any better. Poor guy, all that time spent waiting.

Anyway, this is primarily for Avatar-style 3D, but I suspect movies using that technology will continue to trickle in. A major component of Avatar is the immersion, so you might as well see it as it was intended and see where all that spending went, right? I’ve seen Avatar in 3D from various positions now, and I can tell you that more than any other movie I’ve seen before, positioning really had a large affect on my enjoyment of the film. With regular 2D film, it’s clear that you’re watching a flat projected image coming from a projector. But with “Cameron”-style 3D, the movie makes you feel as if you’re there. Until Total Recall technology comes around, Avatar 3D is going to be the closest to traveling to another habitable planet any of us will ever get. I really don’t think 2D or Bluray is going to do this movie justice.

A true IMAX 3D is the best way to see it in my opinion, despite what I said in the previous post on the differing 3D technology. The IMAX version has the full 1.78:1 (16:9) cut of the film, while the 2D and non-IMAX 3D cuts are 2.35:1. I ran the numbers, and we’re talking about a 25% loss in vertical image going from the IMAX cut to the non-IMAX cut. If anyone knows what cut the LieMAX screens are showing, I’d appreciate it.

For a true IMAX screen, I found 5 rows from the top is very good (this is specifically true of the true IMAX in Irvine. Your mileage may vary). It optimally puts the whole screen in your field of vision, without requiring you to move your neck side to side to see what’s on the left and right. You’re also vertically centered, so you don’t need to crane your neck up either. For all intents and purposes, the top of the IMAX is analogous to the center in a regular theater. So anywhere in the back is good. The front is the face-f**k zone. I got a little dizzy sitting that close. Plus as I mentioned before, the 3D on the sides weren’t syncing sitting that closely unless I physically turned my head to look.

For a regular, non-IMAX screen, the back is terrible. Normally I’d say the back is fine for any other film, but with the immersion factor of Avatar, sitting in the back kind of ruins it. I could see speakers and the walls of the theater in my peripheral vision. It was like watching real life Picture-in-Picture. So in this case, you’d want to sit in the middle, probably near the bar.

I haven’t seen Avatar in a LieMax, but since they’re just up-converted regular theaters, I’d guess the middle would be where to go.

Well, hope that helps some people out there.

“Cameron’s genius is this: He makes movies for women disguised as movies for men.” Definitely a pretty good balance of yin and yang.

OK, I’m addicted. I’ll admit it. I’ve seen Avatar in 3D, three times now. If I know someone that hasn’t seen it, I unabashedly agree to go with them. I’m slightly ashamed, yet the addiction is strong enough that I don’t care. Twice in Imax 3D, and once in RealD. I didn’t know there was a difference, but apparently RealD is superior. Link about different 3D tech. The trade off is that the screen is smaller, and I believe some of the image is cropped = less immersion. I sat in the back for the RealD show and it was like watching a picture-in-picture broadcast. Too much of the peripheral vision was filled by “theater”: speakers, walls, people….definitely sit around the middle or closer.

The 3D…hmm the first time I watched it, I didn’t really think it added all that much. I think it’s because Cameron used it tastefully, did the whole movie in 3D, and didn’t make it in-your-face, save a couple scenes here and there. Hence, since we naturally view things in 3D on a daily basis, I just didn’t notice it and didn’t think it added that much. However, when I saw it a 3rd time at the Irvine Imax 3D, the feed for the left eye was extremely messed up (you can verify by closing each eye individually; the image should be sharp for each). It pretty much ruined all of the 3D. That and the dumb broad next to me who was literally texting on her cell every 5 minutes. I wanted to throw that phone down the stairs. Although I’m guilty of being retarded for not saying anything…

But on the flip side, while constantly fiddling with my 3D glasses, I noticed just how much of the movie was in 3D, and how much of it I was taking for granted. I watched the trailer when I got home, and boy did it look like crap in comparison, like watching some kind of ancient Egyptian papyrus version, or some kind of stone tablet version. I seriously don’t think I can watch this movie in 2D. The bluray isn’t going to do this movie justice, so I figure I should catch it in theaters while I can, until 3D TVs come around. Our kids will wonder how we could put up with 2D TVs.

If you read the first comment in the link above, he mentions a tech called XPAND, supposedly the best of them all. There’s a theater in socal with it…tempted…

Thankfully, Neill Blomkamp only uses the Apartheid theme as a framework. But he definitely is not afraid to pull any punches, and shows the ugly, unethical side of humankind repeatedly, resulting in a pretty raw movie.

I also appreciated the way he decided to present his main characters. Is there a new wave of realistic, even unlikeable characters happening, a la The Wire? Characters that are really primarily interested in themselves, and their own agendas? There were times where I really wanted to slap the main character, Wikus, upside the head. “What are you doooooing??” While that risks alienating the audience, I kind of like the unlikeable hero “movement”, if there is one. It’s like the next stage of evolution for the anti-hero, which before was reserved for roles the likes of Vin Diesel took, but while those guys were assholes, they were still primarily interested in the “mission”, after some light coaxing. Then they just reverted back to your typical Arnold “Hasta La Vista Baby” gung-ho hero-ness.  These new guys primarily give a shit about themselves. They are the common asshole thrown into impossible situations.

Sorry if i’m babbling, in a hurry. Anyway, tennis time. Check out the movie.

And it really is more like an experience. Cohen is like a magician, but instead of magic, he has crazy social scenes. Each scene is like a trick, and you wonder, “How did he do that? Who was in on it, who wasn’t? What did he say to the people to get them to show up? How did he explain the presence of his cameraman?” I actually started thinking of the movie, The Prestige. What was it, the pledge, the turn, and the prestige?

I like her voice (and the eyes, I’m a sucker for crescent-shaped eyes). Apparently she kinda shot herself in the foot by publicly dissing BoA a few years back though, BoA being a music superstar in Asia or something. Btw, what is it with Asian chicks and using the word “fag”? I’m tallying it in my head, and I don’t really see it used by females of other ethnicities very much. Yeah, yeah, I know, localized stereotype. I saw a girl call her younger sister a fag, once. The younger started crying. That was kind of eye-opening. “Huh, didn’t know you could use it on girls. I always thought it only worked on males.” Maybe the young whipper snappers have a different idea of “fag” from my old school, non-Johnny-Tremain one.

But yeah, Asian fans seem super cliquey, defending their idols like crazy, and didn’t take her disrespect too well. She’s definitely got talent, but she and Tiffany of SNSD seem to be setting a precedent of American arrogance when American-born Asians move over to the ancestral motherland to start a career. “I’M FROM AMERICA, BITCHES. I SPRACHEN ZE ENGLISH. BOW DOWN.” Their Confucianism imprint probably got lost being raised stateside.

Not that I think that kind of arrogance is limited to that subset of Americans. I used to think “American arrogance” was hype when I was younger, but I see it all the time these days. The way people perceive foreigners and their accents, the way people perceive foreign movies and cultures vs America’s, etc. I even see it among the so-called liberals who are supposed to be above that, though it tends to be more subtle with them. I imagine it’s the same kind of attitude every great empire/republic has had towards “lesser” states and their peoples. The Romans, the Chinese dynasties, etc.

A few years ago I met this guy who prided himself as being a movie buff. He hated Jet Li’s Hero, and was totally ragging on it. He liked Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon more. I liked both. When I watch a foreign movie, I try to see them from its cultural point of view. The former was more of a movie directed towards Asian tastes, while the later, more towards Western tastes. I told him that in Asia, box office performance was actually reversed, and that Hero did far better over there vs CTHD. He got this look on his face like, “CANNOT COMPUTE! HEAD ‘SPLODING.” He just kind of gave me a stunned, muted response. “Huh.” What can I say, generally speaking, Asians like order and unity and will simply admit it up front. Americans like their individuality, but it was built on lots of conquest. Throw in a “liberal guilt”-style smokescreen about how the cost was too great and shameful while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of said conquest nooo problem, and we have American reviewers finding the “message of Hero troubling.” So…when are the Washington Redskins playing next?

And just for the record, I totally thought the French stereotype of arrogance was hype, too, but when I went over, I definitely got a different vibe than I did from all the other countries I visited, to put it diplomatically. 違う感じ. Go figure.

Wuh woh, begin uber nerdy post! I’d give the movie a B, probably to the anger of my peers, but eh. I wasn’t going to write this, but since I was out of line from my friends who loved it, I felt I should defend my rationale.

I’m not really a hardcore ST fan, so I won’t dress up like a Vulcan or speak Klingon, but I enjoyed The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. To me, between Star Trek and Star Wars, I’ve always felt that Trek was the superior of the two. It just seemed more mature and more science-y, something for the young adult to adult. Competing agendas between different people and races is the name of the game. Star Wars seemed more about the action and the spiritual, something to pacify the kids, and push action figures. Black vs white, the Dark Lord, the timeless and overplayed battle between good and evil. American Steel vs Zombie Nazis.

But never mind that, this isn’t a pointless, never-ending ST vs SW post. ST has tanked over the years. It has always had a niche audience, but after Gene Roddenberry’s death, it got more and more “arcadey” to try to broaden the market. If TNG was the original Ghost Recon, the last few iterations were like Counterstrike. Only oldschool gamers will get that. But unlike Counterstrike, that broadening attempt didn’t really work. In general, tv sci-fi was dying, so instead I think they ended up losing their core audience, and non-core really didn’t want anything to do with Trek anyway.

I’m probably going to sound like that Onion video (shown below), but really, I was looking forward to change for the Star Trek property. I’m the kind of guy that likes relative realism. For example, a flying pink unicorn ridden by a Care Bear in Lord of the Rings would be retarded, but technically not unrealistic since realism arguably has no meaning there. But more Bourne, less Bond. More attention to detail, but not ostentatiously. Chef Ramsay detail.

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As ‘Fun, Watchable’

Enter JJ Abrams to try to resuscitate the series. I figured this would be a good thing. I was curious how he would go about it. Would he totally sell out and just make a re-skinned Star Wars? Or would he keep it largely the same, but strip the engineering, and kind of BSG-fy it? I was kind of hoping for the latter. More naval roots, more fleet, less geeky mumbo jumbo, but without the willy-nilly spirtualism and religion.

Instead, I felt he went in a third direction: X-Men-ification. Wha? Bear with me. No, the captain is not a mutie who will kill you with a stare. It’s a little more subtle then that. I just felt like the characters were overly exaggerated to distinguish them, like looking through the roster for Street Fighter II as you select your character. “YOU HAVE SELECTED: SCOTTIE!” I’d rather have something a little more understated, like the crew of BSG, or the jackasses on Lost, but considering the source material, I can see that their hands were a bit tied.

And I can’t put my finger on exactly why, but I feel like the way the movie was shot felt a bit comic movie-ish, too. I really liked the camera work for the space scenes, very Firefly-ish (I won’t say BSG here because I felt BSG did an inferior, but similar job). But when it came to the characters, it just seemed a bit tv drama to me. I guess it all goes back to me hoping for a more serious, disciplined style. Like Crimson Tide instead of a Seagal movie. There was definitely some fan service for sure, that I could have done without, too. Watching someone make out with another person with pointy ears is a little weird, but hey, I realize it’s still a Trek movie.

Anyway, I still enjoyed it, and would watch it again, but I really don’t think it’s as awesome as everyone is making it out to be. It kinda did feel like just a re-skinned action movie; a very good higher-tier action movie, yes, but action movies, to me, tend to the be the most soul-less of all the genres.

For example, the opening scene is supposed to be awesome, tense, nail-biting. At least I think that was the objective. But, very minor spoiler here, the way the captain acts so calmly as he faces impending doom just irked me and killed any sense of excitement I may have felt. He just seemed very unnatural. My friend claims he shouldn’t act tense at all since he *knows* he’s going to die and all emotion would be pointless, but I don’t buy that. Unless they have totally fallen to the sociopath route, even the hardest of military men would show some visible response, either a grim go-for-broke charge >:(, or just quiet resignation . He just didn’t seem like he was under any duress at all. His son, whom he’ll never see, has just been born, and he’s seconds from death, yet he sounds like he’s getting stock quote updates. It really gave me the sense that, yeah, this guy is sitting on a nice office chair, hurling through space into a wall. Maybe that’s just bad acting.

Chris Pine as the new Kirk did a great job. He says he modeled himself after Han Solo but I think he roundly surpassed that. New Spock was good, too. Overall, the action was pretty cool, and the explanation behind the Romulan ship was really clever I thought. That actually really impressed me for some reason. It’s an excellent example to the attention to detail I was talking about. A small, understated off-hand remark, nothing flashy, nothing uber nerdy, just like that.

I’m slightly amused by the fact that the movie has a lot of similarities with the last Trek movie, but that one tanked, whereas this one did not. Giant Romulan ship tearing shit up, the Enterprise to save the day. It’s not a totally fair comparison because I can’t remember jack from the older one, but I suppose the new one injected good ol’ wit and youth, that the other lacked. So it’s more like a band of pumped young whipper snappers vs a band of old fuddy-duddies.

I checked rotten tomatoes, and the consensus is pretty damn high, so maybe I’m just biased somehow, but woot, I am not alone! Ebert didn’t think it was super-awesome, either.