LinksterAC

Interesting. How are you assessing this? Specifically, I'm curious about whatever metrics you're using to analyze the level of positivity in the reviews.

Oh, excuse me, I didn't say that's what you were saying. It just seemed to be an essential question begged by the context of that line of discussion in this thread in general. It is an honest question, though, for everyone here.

It felt about as long as the first one to me & I was content to sit through it. I was certainly never bored.

Are we sure the public has deemed it unworthy of the 3hr runtime? Seems like audience reviews are pretty darn positive, right?

Binging is an excellent counterpoint to the argument of short attention spans. Good thing for us to keep logged in our mental files, I think.

I'm gonna wait a couple weeks before I start writing eulogies. Though I do agree that if this movie ends up not turning a profit, this is a legitimate thing to point at. It's a long flick! (though it doesn't seem to be really bothering many people that I can see)

I don't know if it's the cold hard truth (that's up to the audience to decide in aggregate, I suppose), but I do respect that it's an opinion that differs significantly from my own.

Absolutely spellbinding. And I say this as someone with numerous critiques of the film.

Actually, I thought about this while watching A2, & figured it might lead to a more ready acceptance of HFR compared to The Hobbit a decade ago. I wonder if a more gamer-heavy consumer base is more likely to appreciate the clarity in action that comes with HFR, since their eyes are more likely to be trained to it. This seems like another "this is unique!" feature that could help Avatar. Or not. Who knows!

I think the truth of this is in the eye of the consumer, and may be one of the determining factors on how successful this run is. But for my part, yes, this is technically >>>>>>>>> everything else out there. Between the 3D, HFR, water & regular accoutrements (IMAX, Dolby, etc.), it's simply in a class of its own. We'll see what audiences think.

I guess I just don't agree here. The question this begs is *potentially* (not necessarily) world breaking, and so it should have been addressed. And a passing line about how Tommy didn't want to do it, or how technology wasn't ready, could have done the trick.

All good. Thanks for your perspectives!

Agree. I think that while the technical accomplishment is a necessary condition for these films' resonance with audiences, it's by no means sufficient. They have another je ne sais quoi that depends on the visuals but surpasses them. Hard to put a finger on.

That's fair, & while I agree that those specific things aren't really replicable in a movie theater (at least not that I've seen), would be it wrong to say that there are certain other things about this particular film's in-theater experience that are not replicable at home?

I agree with you. But I still like going to live events because it's a qualitatively *different* (as opposed to superior/inferior) experience.

Tell me more. Edit: I do agree there are massive differences, but I'm not sure they're necessarily disqualifying of the comparison I made.

Which is why live sporting events have no spectators ever? 😁

Why can't it be about both? And I tend to think of the Avatar movies so far as not "OMG IT LOOKS AMAZING" as much as "I simply can't have this experience anywhere but here."

I understand all that, and am intrigued by its potential exploration. But how does this answer the question of why Tommy didn’t back up his consciousness to be used in his Avatar in the event he’s no longer able to do so himself?

That second paragraph is a good point, and it’s another sign of poor writing IMHO. Like, it feels like a fundamental character change & makes him a bit unrecognizable from the first film (where he obviously stood & fought even against dire odds). Thing is, there’s soil here to grow that tree. Being a father & protecting those kids can change a man’s priorities—but I don’t feel the writing earned that change.

I mean the story arc felt comically recycled sometimes. Like beat-for-beat, & line-for-line. BUT the characters are really likable, & their relationships are relatable, & I’ve noticed that can make up for *a lot* of failures elsewhere with GA (& myself, TBH). If you care about the characters, & their story tugs on your emotions, you can forgive all manner of writing B.S.

HFR in IMAX 3D definitely worked for me, particularly for the action set pieces & underwater. I prefer to watch it this way, especially since the visual fidelity/realism here is much better than what we got with The Hobbit (which I think is best viewed at 24 fps).

I’m confused by your first paragraph. What is the difference here that is relevant to the questions begged about Tommy not downloading his consciousness? I don’t feel like they provide an answer in the film. The Quaritch father & son dynamic & setup actually worked for me, even if the performance & development given to Spider was lacking. I hope they pay it off in the later entries & I think they will in much the way you’re describing.

Like I said, it doesn’t break the film, and you can fill in the holes with a bit of effort. But really, the Avatars are a multi-million (billion?) dollar investment that can only work with one individual and they didn’t think it was prudent to do this as a general precaution? Sure, I can concoct reasons why Jake’s brother didn’t or couldn’t do it, but for a conceit so central to the world building and the story, I really shouldn’t have to. So, yeah, I do necessarily think it’s bad writing—though I still did end up greatly enjoying the film for many other reasons.

Well, again, my point was not that it *will* equal the original, just that it’s too early to say. But since you bring this line of argument up, I’m not sure how useful that bolded sentence is in assessing this. First of all, I’m not sure it’s a prerequisite (TFA, Shrek 2?). Secondly, even if it is, I’m not sure the film doesn’t qualify. The film’s visuals (especially in PLF) are just really beyond imagination, & can’t be experienced at home, it’s also tied to an emotional core that I think has broader appeal than the original’s. I think those things could be the “more or better” you’re asking for. Finally, it seems at least as universally loved as the original, which was really well loved, & holding that as a demerit doesn’t make sense to me. What data would you be looking for to suggest that a magical run is brewing? I wouldn’t know where to start, because this film is so unlike what we usually get.