I mean, was anyone actually watching this for the plot? No really. Someone actually walked into Avatar 2 and thought, damn this plot line about to be legendary.
Tickets are expensive. $27 per adult for the 3d with Imax. We settled for the $14 ea. 3D rpx since I have to pay for 6.
Its amazing how the Avatar movies are judged so harshly for plot and acting or even the fact its cgi. It's judged against perfection while these same people love capes and tights movies and tons of clichéd and poorly acted films. There's nothing in these films acting or plot wise that makes you want to check out strictly because of it. All the worldwide resident contrarions come out for this specfic verse for some reason. You can turn on anything on any app or go to the movie and watch terrible and obviously bad acting before you look at avatar 1 or 2 with unbiased eyes and say that it had bad acting. You can do the same with plots. Avatar is just a Screensaver. Guillermo Del Toros Pinnochio is just another animated film. We take too much for granted now and we immediately want to dismiss anything with a legendary past as nostalgic. Jim Cameron is getting the Jordan treatment from young fans now who just dont want to allow themselves to see his greatness.(not that jim is the jordan of film. Kurusawa and Kubrick and Spellberg and JC combined maybe) Anyway...the film was OUTSTANDING.
Nah you're good. I dabbled in 3D/4D animation tools back in the day. It's a high learning curve, especially when trying to learn from scratch and go about it yourself. Some skills has a low barrier entry. Say cooking for example. Cooking well takes time and exprience, but cooking an omelette is something many can learn fairly easily. Same thing with doing a layup, or writing a Hello World program. But creating even a simple CGI image (without help: AI/templates) from scratch takes time because familiarity with the software first. The artistry it takes to do some of the stuff we see on the big screen is mind boggling. When a director has a tricky scene in mind; the way to go about it could vary greatly. A few second of a shot could a product of several CGI techniques/pass thru, hours of rendering, and worked on by many CGI artists. It's not like a painter; where the method doesn't vary (still a canvas, a brush and some paint). In case of Avatar and Cameron's other projects, new methods were invented to accomplish some of the things they want. To a movie audience, if something doesn't look right (or up to par), it's fair to critique. By most accounts, Avatar 2 delivered visually. Things like the plot and dialogue wasn't cringe or bad enough that it got in the way of the visual experience. I saw this on a Tue; was a daytime screening. 3D Imax in one of the Luxury lounge seats, had a blast.
Regarding the importance of plot and acting this is still a movie trying to tell a story. If we just decide plot and acting don't matter then The Phantom Menace should've been best picture.
Movie was a combination of Water world, Moana, braveheart, and toy soldier. I give it a 7/10. Felt I was watching a ps3 video game. My kids did enjoy it.
Are you saying this because you feel the graphics/CGI are dated or are you saying this because you're old and think PS3 is the pinnacle of gaming graphics/CGI?
not sure if I’m gonna see this in theaters or wait for it to be available to rent/stream the run time is a big obstacle for me right now
Never doubt James Cameron, but it still aggravates me that the GOAT has dedicated 25 years to this visual art franchise and stopped making masterpieces.
