Ok, I've seen James Cameron's Avatar in 3D. I wasn't particularly fussed about seeing it in 3D but my husband said it would be worth it and I'm glad I did. There were no gratuitous objects looming out of the screen.
A boy of about 6 was seated a couple of rows in front of us. When the floating powder puffs floated out of the screen he tried to catch them. It was delightful.
I thought the film was visually rich. And it should be for the price. Over at TheWrap they said:
'Speculation over the film’s costs and profitability started with a Nov. 8 story by the New York Times that claimed “when global marketing expenses are added, ‘Avatar’ may cost its various backers $500 million." The piece added up all production costs, New Zealand tax credits, Cameron’s efforts and marketing to put the “Titanic” director’s decade-long effort at close to a Hollywood heart stopping sum.'
'The budget for “Avatar,” a Fox spokesperson bluntly told TheWrap this week, “is $237 million, with $150 million for promotion, end of story.”'
What ever the cost of the movie, the most interesting thing to me was that this much money was spent on a film in which the main characters were not white American protestants. The backers felt the viewing public was sophisticated enough to identify with aliens, who follow their own Gaian religion. True, the aliens were a variation on the ideal noble savage, but considering how insular and safe the hollywood studios are backing Avatar was a brave move.
Here is George Dvorksy's take on the film. I felt the plot which was pretty basic and I did not feel that the blue aliens had 'won' at the end. Humans are just too bloody minded.
The ROR group was started in 2001 by Marianne and Rowena.
We meet every year or so to critique our manuscripts. We are united by a passion for the speculative fiction genre and the craft of writing. (And sharing good food and wine doesn't go amiss, either). www.ripping-ozzie-reads.com