Avatar 2 - The Way of Water Dec 2022

[Paulando]

25 minutes ago, mash said:

Everything in this felt sterile, reminiscent of the Star Wars prequels

Nah, there is nothing close to the level of shitness of the Star Wars prequels. Not even close.

 

I do think if you’re not seeing it in IMAX 3D HFR, you’d miss out on a lot. It’s a giant cinema experience, akin to the Transformers ride at Universal Studios. Seeing those full CGI scenes in HFR absolutely sells it at something solid and real in front of you, pretty close to how VR works.

 

Where in the world do you live where it’s so expensive? The IMAX in Manchester is £14.99 a ticket 

[glb]

The BFI IMAX at Waterloo is £27 a ticket. Still, with the advanced runtime, it actually works out cheaper per hour than usual.

[scottcr]

19 minutes ago, mash said:

Saw this yesterday, watched the paupers 2d version at 24 frames. There was a £15 quid difference in price from watching that version and watching the 3d HFR version. I'm not that much of a fan of Avatar to stump up that much extra. 

 

The problem I had with it was it felt like you're watching a video game. When watching Predator you know the characters are in the jungle or when watching Castaway, Tom Hanks is on a desert island. Everything in this felt sterile, reminiscent of the Star Wars prequels or that Jude Law film  from years ago.   It's nice eye candy but nothing it's just scenery. Nothing feels tangible. 

 

As for the story itself, same beats as part 1 but this time they're at a beach resort. It was okay, the middle act was tiresome and I cringed at all the new age stuff but the action scenes were good. Actually, Cameron does have previous with boring middle acts. Terminator 2 anyone?

 

Cameron has needed an editor who'll tell him to pull it back ever since he did Aliens special edition and convinced himself it was the best version of that film (it's not!!).  Every film he's done since has been overlong and T2 is a good example of that as well. 

 

My fear on this film is that when you take away HFR and 3D, it's like a massive cut-scene.  Andor *felt* better than the other Star Wars shows because you could tell it was real.  Computer people bouncing off computer things just doesn't connect the same way.

[mash]

34 minutes ago, Paulando said:

Nah, there is nothing close to the level of shitness of the Star Wars prequels. Not even close.

 

I do think if you’re not seeing it in IMAX 3D HFR, you’d miss out on a lot. It’s a giant cinema experience, akin to the Transformers ride at Universal Studios. Seeing those full CGI scenes in HFR absolutely sells it at something solid and real in front of you, pretty close to how VR works.

 

Where in the world do you live where it’s so expensive? The IMAX in Manchester is £14.99 a ticket 

Birmingham. The super saver option I watched it on was £5.99. To watch in 3d was about £20. 

[Uncle Mike]

I do seem to have this mindset for big CGI fests where I just don't care about them.

 

Like, I get it's a visual extravaganza, but I just don't feel anything for it. It's the same when it's the typical Marvel smash-up climax at the end of the film, or anything really. Ooh, look how much money we spent on graphics just doesn't do anything for me.

 

I used to think it was maybe because I'm a gamer and so I see impressive graphics all the time, but I think that's probably bollocks. I think it's because it's not exciting to me. There's something different about people having gone to a location and actually filmed something, I think. When it's Avatar and all the people are graphics too, well. And then it's not even as if it's a great and compelling story? Fuck that.

[mash]

21 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

I do seem to have this mindset for big CGI fests where I just don't care about them.

 

Like, I get it's a visual extravaganza, but I just don't feel anything for it. It's the same when it's the typical Marvel smash-up climax at the end of the film, or anything really. Ooh, look how much money we spent on graphics just doesn't do anything for me.

 

I used to think it was maybe because I'm a gamer and so I see impressive graphics all the time, but I think that's probably bollocks. I think it's because it's not exciting to me. There's something different about people having gone to a location and actually filmed something, I think. When it's Avatar and all the people are graphics too, well. And then it's not even as if it's a great and compelling story? Fuck that.

 

Yep. I was watching Sorcerer the other day. Now that film gives you the feeling of being in a rain forest. Because, y'know, it was actually filmed in a rainforest. For all the millions of dollars spent on Avatar, there's not one sequence in that film which compares to the bridge sequence Sorceror. Like I said earlier, watching Avatar is like watching someone playing a computer game. Albeit  a very pretty one running on a GTX 4090.

 

 

[Harsin]

1 hour ago, Uncle Mike said:

I do seem to have this mindset for big CGI fests where I just don't care about them.

 

Like, I get it's a visual extravaganza, but I just don't feel anything for it. It's the same when it's the typical Marvel smash-up climax at the end of the film, or anything really. Ooh, look how much money we spent on graphics just doesn't do anything for me.

 

I used to think it was maybe because I'm a gamer and so I see impressive graphics all the time, but I think that's probably bollocks. I think it's because it's not exciting to me. There's something different about people having gone to a location and actually filmed something, I think. When it's Avatar and all the people are graphics too, well. And then it's not even as if it's a great and compelling story? Fuck that.

 

 

I find myself switching off in the third-act of so many of these films as well. I think part of the problem is you have to be emotionally invested in the characters and what’s happening to them and here they’re all wafer-thin.

 

I think it’s telling that even the posts praising the film are all ‘But the graphics tho’ and nary a mention of the characters or story. Personally I need more than flashy visuals. If all I want to do is look at nice scenery I’d watch a David Attenborough documentary.

[Paulando]

4 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

I do seem to have this mindset for big CGI fests where I just don't care about them.

 

Like, I get it's a visual extravaganza, but I just don't feel anything for it. It's the same when it's the typical Marvel smash-up climax at the end of the film, or anything really. Ooh, look how much money we spent on graphics just doesn't do anything for me.

No, I get that. There were three trailers for superhero films before this and they all looked the same, and all had that swirly magic CGI and CGI characters bouncing around. That doesn’t do anything for me these days.

 

But this, for me, is stepping into a completely alien world for a few hours. Yeah there are plenty of forests and lots of water, but none of it exists on earth, and it’s all from someone’s imagination, along with the creatures and all of the machinery. Just some nice escapism from the current shitty state of our own world.

[Strafe]

2 hours ago, Paulando said:

Nah, there is nothing close to the level of shitness of the Star Wars prequels. Not even close.

 

 

Might I introduce you to the sequel trilogy.

[Delargey]

23 minutes ago, Paulando said:

No, I get that. There were three trailers for superhero films before this and they all looked the same, and all had that swirly magic CGI and CGI characters bouncing around. That doesn’t do anything for me these days.

 

But this, for me, is stepping into a completely alien world for a few hours. Yeah there are plenty of forests and lots of water, but none of it exists on earth, and it’s all from someone’s imagination, along with the creatures and all of the machinery. Just some nice escapism from the current shitty state of our own world.

 

I enjoyed this movie for the lovely escapism but the alien world wasn't that imaginative really - I'd have loved the world to have some truly unique elements rather than just space whale.

 

 

[makkuwata]

In a Christmas miracle my medicineman delivery arrived today, so I might give the first one another go this evening and if results are positive head in tomorrow for 4DX. This has to be particularly stupid with all that going on.

[Loik V credern]

1 hour ago, Paulando said:

No, I get that. There were three trailers for superhero films before this and they all looked the same, and all had that swirly magic CGI and CGI characters bouncing around. That doesn’t do anything for me these days.

 

But this, for me, is stepping into a completely alien world for a few hours. Yeah there are plenty of forests and lots of water, but none of it exists on earth, and it’s all from someone’s imagination, along with the creatures and all of the machinery. Just some nice escapism from the current shitty state of our own world.

 

I get the difference between superhero films and Avatar but Pandora is not 'completely alien' is it? 

 

You can just search 'deep sea creatures' on youtube and see things that are more alien than anything you've seen before, and more alien than whatever Avatar can offer.

 

first video that came up:

 

 

There is art/entertainment outside of deep sea creatures that I find alien or otherworldly, Metroid Prime and Echoes, Shadow of the Collosus, Giger obviously, some electronic music, but it's rare, and it has to be earned. 

 

I think Valerian wasn't good because it offered an alien world, it was just visually inventive. Avatar failing to be remotely alien or otherworldly or mysterious to me is the most disappointing thing about it. There are enough seriously weird creatures on Earth already, not just in the ocean, which have life cycles no human could conjure up honestly, so this attachment to the broadest blandest execution by Cameron has never ringed true for me. Even our obsession with 'is alien life out there' makes little sense to me, if we found anything it'd just be like the strange creatures we have on Earth already.

 

It's been said a thousand times but it's still true, the biggest failure in most if not all of these films that present cgi heavy visuals is they're not magical and mysterious in the way a lot of the use of practical effects in the 80s was. Avatar isn't trying to be mysterious, people can find more mystery driving at night on a long motorway, it's trying to be an overload of bright visuals but I disagree with that having much value. And they could have absolutely tried to be more mysterious with it, I don't think using cgi means you can't be. 

[Paulando]

Just now, Loik V credern said:

I get the difference between superhero films and Avatar but Pandora is not 'completely alien' is it? 

 

You can just search 'deep sea creatures' on youtube and see things that are more alien than anything you've seen before, and more alien than whatever Avatar can offer.

I mean, whatever it is you’re seeing on the screen doesn’t exist anywhere on earth, so by that definition it is completely alien. They have trees and water, but it makes sense that humans would find a world thats close to our own to plunder. It was just a cool, beautiful world to escape in for a few hours.
 

Not sure what your point about the deep sea is? I can watch Blue Planet already at home, but it doesn’t offer me what Avatar 2 did. I think a lot of the stuff on Pandora, including on land in the first film, is heavily influenced by deep sea creatures.

[Chindie]

I was always a little lost with the idea that Avatar was presenting a uniquely alien world that was developed with scientists and biologists etc. I remember seeing some extended promo/BTS thing for the first film where they were waxing lyrical about how they wanted to make an alien world that is cohesive and offered a scientific take on a truly alien world... And then you watch it and the alien world they designed is just a 6 year olds fever dream with a budget. I mean... They have horses, but they aren't horses, they're like seahorses... And they've got 6 legs...! And... And... 4 eyes! And one set of eyes is like... lizard eyes! And they have like... holes to breathe out of on their neck! And to ride them you plug yourself in! And they sound like the raptors from Jurassic Park...!

 

And there'll be floating mountains and stuff.

 

...

 

Cool right!?

 

For all the world leading CGI being used, the designs always felt very... artificial and designed. And because the whole thing has that CGI sheen and glow to it it feels less real inherently than the practical effects of far lesser budget works.

 

As a result Avatar always felt to me like a tech demo. Technically incredible, but with no substance. There's not a creature in Avatar I am more engaged by than I am by the Xenomorphs or Queen from Aliens, or hell the banthas from Star Wars, even with the limitations of the puppets and suits.

 

That feeling probably isn't helped by the fact the original film has such a completely rote leaden plot which has been done by loads of fiction, and then kinda smashes in a really clunking environmentalism theme that has no subtlety at all, and then smacks on a 'noble savage' theme that is so blatant and cloying I'm surprised more offense wasn't raised, that it feels like the narrative was thrown in as an afterthought and done while drunk.

[RubberJohnny]

I think going "well this massively corporate action blockbuster film is a welcome antidote to all that superhero rubbish", is the most baffling take. It's exactly the same fucking thing.

 

Boy a shame all those Marvel movies are set in New York and not fantastic imaginative scifi worlds that look like metal album covers or strange multiverses, huh?

[Nick R]

2 hours ago, Uncle Mike said:

I do seem to have this mindset for big CGI fests where I just don't care about them.

 

Like, I get it's a visual extravaganza, but I just don't feel anything for it. It's the same when it's the typical Marvel smash-up climax at the end of the film, or anything really. Ooh, look how much money we spent on graphics just doesn't do anything for me.

 

I used to think it was maybe because I'm a gamer and so I see impressive graphics all the time, but I think that's probably bollocks. I think it's because it's not exciting to me. There's something different about people having gone to a location and actually filmed something, I think. When it's Avatar and all the people are graphics too, well. And then it's not even as if it's a great and compelling story? Fuck that.

 

For me, it's not as straightforward as that. A lot of people say that they'll always prefer physical stunts, models, and effects over CG. And yes, it is impressive to see a stunt person do something spectacular for real; even more so if it's the star like Jackie Chan or Tom Cruise or Keanu Reeves. It's also nice whenever a film makes a big fuss in its promotional material about how much was done physically on set, or achieved with creative non-CG methods (like the fluid macro-photography in The Fountain). I appreciate a cool sci-fi model as much as anyone (I watched every minute of the raw model shot footage on the Red Dwarf DVDs! ) 

 

So there is a difference between effects achieved "for real" and those where you just think "they did it on a computer". But for me that's something that matters for behind the scenes trivia. That does contribute to enjoying or disliking a film. But while I'm watching, I care about the the idea and overall flow of the action being depicted, rather than on how it was achieved or how convincing it looks.

 

So even though I might be able to tell the difference when something switches to CG, I'm a lot more forgiving of it than a lot of people online. Yeah, The Matrix Reloaded's Burly Brawl has shots that stick out, and Black Panther's final one-on-one fight is a drop in quality compared to the rest of the film's effects. But I won't moan about effects being"bad" unless it's something on the level of Pierce Brosnan surfing a tsunami.

 

Put it this way. I agree with the consensus that it was a problem that Peter Jackson's King Kong and the Hobbit films tipped the balance towards CG, rather than the more effectively balanced combination of models and CG that had been used on LOTR. But my issue with the action scenes in those films was not that they were achieved using CG, but with the ideas behind the actions being depicted. (So much absurdly lucky fall survivability!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for how this applies to Avatar 2... despite featuring one outstandingly stupid decision from otherwise pretty competent bad guys, I thought the action finale was excellent, one of the best in a very long time. Cameron remains rather good at this stuff! So I had no problem with suspending disbelief for the effects.

 

My problem with the use of all-CG characters wasn't that they "led to weightless action" or "fell into the uncanny valley" as people usually complain. My issue was that it hindered how recognisable the characters were. The alien features overwhelmed any human features recognisable from a distance. Combine that with the similarity of male and female Na'vi physiques, and the lack of character-specific clothing, and almost every time there was a shot of someone riding an underwater creature it took a moment for me to recognise who it was. For most of the film, I couldn't tell the difference between the two brothers unless one of them was speaking!

[Loik V credern]

1 hour ago, Paulando said:

I mean, whatever it is you’re seeing on the screen doesn’t exist anywhere on earth, so by that definition it is completely alien. They have trees and water, but it makes sense that humans would find a world thats close to our own to plunder. It was just a cool, beautiful world to escape in for a few hours.

 

Hmm, anything created that exists in its own world is completely alien? I've never used it like that. Completely alien to me means that when I'm watching it or listening to it despite knowing it was created by humans I still find it hard to believe. I am 100% transported.

 

When in Alien they land on the planet before they find the egg chamber, you're entirely convinced the images you're seeing are of an alien world. If that's because it's murky and desolate then that's what the filmmakers knew would be most convincing.

 

Our obsession with bright colours and fidelity on tvs and Cameron knowing that the world has to be desirable both undermine its capacity to transport you. Avatar is about Cameron putting up on screen the natural world we're losing, it was never going to be anything but lush jungles and lush oceans, but still I don't think they've really tried to make something otherworldly, just pretty. 

 

1 hour ago, Paulando said:

Not sure what your point about the deep sea is? I can watch Blue Planet already at home, but it doesn’t offer me what Avatar 2 did. I think a lot of the stuff on Pandora, including on land in the first film, is heavily influenced by deep sea creatures.

 

Not sure how I've failed to make my point! If the draw of Avatar is to see things that are completely alien then everyone would find more astonishment watching videos of actually real creatures on Earth you haven't seen yet, which given we keep discovering new species every day and keep getting footage of them for the first time, then whatever you see will be new to you. If all that footage of deep sea creatures was instead captured on some far away planet, would people view it differently? Maybe a stupid question, of course they would. I just don't know what's unfulfilling about watching an octopus, they're ridiculous. 

[Strafe]

You guys are confusing Alien and Extraterrestrial.

[James Lyon]

What did Jake Sully's children say to him when it got too cold on Pandora Christmas Day?

 

Spoiler

Fleece, Na'vi dad!

 

[Stig]

On 22/12/2022 at 10:23, Paulando said:

Nah, there is nothing close to the level of shitness of the Star Wars prequels. Not even close.

 

I do think if you’re not seeing it in IMAX 3D HFR, you’d miss out on a lot. It’s a giant cinema experience, akin to the Transformers ride at Universal Studios. Seeing those full CGI scenes in HFR absolutely sells it at something solid and real in front of you, pretty close to how VR works.

 

Where in the world do you live where it’s so expensive? The IMAX in Manchester is £14.99 a ticket 

 

Isn't this a massive problem though. There's nothing close to me that does that, the closest IMAX is 1hr:10mins away. So if I did chose to see this, I'm automatically getting a lesser version.

[Stig]

On 22/12/2022 at 12:32, Paulando said:

No, I get that. There were three trailers for superhero films before this and they all looked the same, and all had that swirly magic CGI and CGI characters bouncing around. That doesn’t do anything for me these days.

 

But this, for me, is stepping into a completely alien world for a few hours. Yeah there are plenty of forests and lots of water, but none of it exists on earth, and it’s all from someone’s imagination, along with the creatures and all of the machinery. Just some nice escapism from the current shitty state of our own world.

 

This makes little sense when the last 3 Marvel movies took place in Space, a Multiverse and on 2 fictional nations, one of which was under the Ocean. All had weird and wonderful creatures/places in them. The next 2 films are then set in Space and the Quataum realm. Everything you enjoyed was and in these films (admittedly they just weren't very good)

 

Now I get this is different kind of blockbuster in a sea of what have recently been sub-par superhero films but that 2nd paragraph feels a little disingenuous. Just say you prefer this type of Blockbuster over Superhero films, there's no need to try and justify it. Enjoy what you enjoy.

[James Lyon]

3 hours ago, Stigweard said:

Now I get this is different kind of blockbuster in a sea of what have recently been sub-par superhero films

 

Pun not intended.

[Chadruharazzeb]

On 22/12/2022 at 12:32, Paulando said:

Yeah there are plenty of forests and lots of water, but none of it exists on earth

 

I'm pretty sure they do exist on earth... 🤔 

[Padaxes]

I thought this was great, but I do love the first one mind you. I watched it again last week in preparation fully expecting not to watch it all the way through as I've seen it a bunch of times and found it flew by.

 

I was a bit worried at the start of the sequel, the opening scenes were a bit fuzzy, I think the focus might have been off. And the family scenes had a worrying hokieness. 

 

But I was soon immersed in Pandora once again and glued to it till the end. The CG is spectacular, it's incredible, almost flawless. I would love to see it on the big iMax in 3d. 

 

The story was a bit samey and it's not without its flaws , and it skirts that cheesy hokieness line on a couple of occasions. But overall I loved it. 

 

I must say however I found that one protracted section really distressing and as a result am not sure I want to sit through it again.

 

I was also expecting a couple of the story arcs to deliver more, but it's obviously being saved for the sequels. 

 

I thought they should have avoided the 

 

Spoiler

Ship landing scene, I thought that was overkill but it's not the most subtle story telling on the whole.

 

Wasn't sure they needed the magic whale juice either. 

 

Overall I thought it was fantastic.

An ok story , some great action and stunning visuals.

 

Really looking forward to the next one.

[IcEBuRN]

On 19/12/2022 at 16:39, the_debaser said:

Fair enough. I just hated it and decided my time would be better spent going home and finishing off Andor. Which is excellent btw. 

Yeah, I've had a little time and a few follow up replies to reflect on that post, and I realised neither of us will agree on the correct course of action when watching a shit (fairly reasonable) film. But, I am sorry and apologise for implying you are an idiot for doing so. That was unfair and unnecessary when it's clear I wasn't joking. 

[Loik V credern]

Well i watched it and it's exactly what i thought it'd be. From a trailer that is 2 minutes 30 seconds to a film over 3 hours long it contained no surprises whatsoever, perhaps only 

 

Spoiler

the whale that speaks to the kid.

 

I just don't get it really, i don't get how something so broad and earnest and predictable and bland can be engaged with when every single person watches tv or films expecting the complete opposite of that. And i know people have seen some fucking amazing tv shows and films. This is how it goes right, everyone watches Game Of Thrones and Sean Bean carries the seriousness, the earnestness and it's not like you're grasping for interesting characters or moments because of how the first episode ends, but as soon as Tyrion turns up (which was episode 1 anyway i think, but he comes into his own further on) you just think 'oh, i'm in now'. Because he has a personality and he is witty and he is intelligent and if you're going to spend many hours with something simply make it so you think 'oh i can't wait until that character turns up again because he's not some wafer thin generic person who every time he says something it's some dullard line stating the obvious themes'. You have a character who is noble but have loads of devious liars and pyschopaths he can interact with.

 

It's not that Avatar is slightly broad, earnest, predictable and bland, it can't be those things any more than it is. It does genuinely infuriate me because besides being boring as fuck and a wasted opportunity it's like how people fret about others being taken along by right wing rhetoric, essentially saying 'got to worry about these thickos being easily convinced'. Well i'm like that with art, i start to get scared people have been led into such an apathetic state that something so derivative it actually uses the same villain from the first film is just met with a shrug, it can be like a disease. Occassionly you get art that's so inspiring, so vivid, so potent it inspires whole generations, you know when you watch or listen to something and it suddenly just opens up millions of possibilities, i can't handle generic shit that just closes all that off, that just numbs you.

 

James Cameron is a vegan sure, he cares about nature, but his mindset of maximum profit at the expense of the death or harm of something is no different to the hyper capitalists he hates. He hoovers up money and kills creativity. I'm not watching the next one. What's the point? I can write it now, we all could. I think it's going to be a battle again between bows and arrows and machinery. Stephen Lang will be the villain even when every body is used up and he's just a brain in a jar.

 

Honestly i'd rather we zoom ahead 20 years where AI has advanced to the point where they're making films instead of dull cunts like Cameron. Or he can just be the administrator, he asks the world to send in their ideas and hopefully because children haven't been poisoned by all the dull art being created they take all their madness, send it to Cameron and he inputs it into the machine for the AI to produce a film out of it. I am not joking, i would prefer that if it means something approaching interesting. If i want to be moved by themes around family i'll watch something with real people in it written by a proper writer. Or Six Feet Under again. No pyschopaths in that but it's funny.

 

Spoiler

Jake has had loads of kids has he, oh I bet they won't immediately try to be all manly to prove to eachother how ballsy they are, i bet they won't rebel, i bet they won't get bullied and get into scraps if they meet others not quite like them, i bet they won't go into areas that are dangerous and nearly die like the fucking lion king. I dozed off before one died so maybe others can share how gripped they were when one of his random identical kids died somehow.

 

A film so derivative the only new character is Bam Bam from The Flinstones.

 

Come on, there's absolutely something to the apathy present, this was a sequel to a film 13 years in the making that could go anywhere. And this is what we got. I can't think of any other sequel so devoid of anything approaching something new or fresh, even if it's midguided and not a good idea. The Matrix sequels aren't great but at least they have ideas! The twins. There, that's one. Who i think are genuinely fantastic by the way, not fully used probably, but there's still quality there. Way of Water has nothing, just some green Na'vi and Bam Bam. Some whales. We have whales on Earth, they don't talk but at least they're real. I don't get. We're going to get 10 hours into these and it will become so inert even those in love with them will be grasping for something to cling on to as it recycles what it's already recycled to further recycle. You know when a season of Game of Thrones would end and you've not read the books the books don't exist and you are just so excited to see where it might go next because interesting things have already happened at a frequency and quality that's stunning, well i'd like 1% of that but i guess that's too much to expect of unlimited money and resources. And people know exactly what that feeling is like because people have fucking watched those shows. If Game of Thrones had been written by James Cameron you wouldn't have watched it. I also didn't like how Game Of Thrones declined in the last few seasons so not sure why i've picked that for my whole post really.

 

2/10.

[Masterbeef]

Blimey.

[Pete]

I think loik didn't like it?

 

It's just got past $1 billion. I don't understand.

[Fargo]

I enjoyed it. Too long and the middle section could lose 40 mins but the start and end were good fun. 3D (which I normally hate) and the CGI were top notch. 

[Loik V credern]

18 minutes ago, Pete said:

I think loik didn't like it?

 

It's just got past $1 billion. I don't understand.

 

Always was going to though, when it comes to awfulness there's no line for people, everything is just 'yeah i enjoyed it' or 'no i didn't enjoy it'. If you ask anyone how they feel about homelessness they're not going to plough into a tirade, they're just going to shrug like 'well...i'd rather we didn't have it but what are you going to do lol?' If people don't care about that then i'm not really expecting much reaction to a film. I still can't wrap my head around it though, when i like something it's for reasons, it's not just because. If i like something because it has all these qualities that then something else has none of them, key fundamental things, then it figures it's going to be severely lacking. but whatever. It's not like many people would disagree with the points but people are apathetic, with art, with society, passion is beaten out of people, it's how it's set up, it's fine. but again..if a tv show lacks strong characters, humour and good dialogue i'm simply not going to watch it and given how many people refuse to get into a new show when that same fatigue is a thing.. But Avatar gets a pass because bright colours. We regress into the state of babies, transfixed by it all. apparently, i wish i could be but i'd have to have been in a coma for the last 30 years and not experienced any other art/entertainment which tries to find inspiring fresh ideas. anyway, repeating self. that'll be it.

 

Only an hour after when thinking about the film did i remember the framerate change issue because...i didn't notice it. I'm sure my showing didn't have it. Was in 3d.

 

The whale bit was the best part of the film for me, but it wasn't much.