For me, great filmmakers have made great 3-D films that truly must be see at the cinema. When they are not, it feels like people denigrate some of these.
You already mentioned Ang Lee's Life of Pi which was stunning to watch.
Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity is the closest I will ever come to being in outer space.
Martin Scorsese's Hugo (which I knew nothing about prior to seeing) endlessly surprised and delighted my senses.
And my absolute favorite was Wim Wender's Pina. An amazing tribute documentary to one of the greatest choreographers and dancer of all-time, Pina Bausch. (I have seen 2 of her productions in person). Seeing dancing in 3-D was an immersion I never knew I needed and that I will never forget
I feel like I had a really awful experience seeing Gravity in theaters, although I'm now realizing I don't remember what my problem was? But yes, I feel like those are some of the others, but Gravity is the latest in 2013, and so you really do feel the weight of so many post-conversions that came afterwards.
I think all of these come from this brief new golden age of 3D from the late 2000s/early 2010s when great filmmakers were really doing amazing stuff with the format. This quickly shifted to just making crappy 3D versions of almost all wide release movies in order to get higher ticket prices, as Myles points out
Avatar as a theme park experience has made a more lasting impression on me than Avatar as a movie -- which is not entirely a fair comparison, since obviously the Pandora stuff is there every time you go to Animal Kingdom, whereas rewatching the film is a specific self-contained activity. But it's definitely one of those Disney World experiences that feels quite abstracted from the IP it's based on, up there with the soon-to-be-replaced Splash Mountain's loose affiliation with Song of the South for the typical parkgoer. Other modern Disney rides tend to really emphasize the plot beats and characters of their associated franchises in a way that the designers eschewed for the Pandora section. The theming is incredible, but it feels more like it's being presented as a blank canvas to write yourself into than a reminder/reproduction of any prior fan-favorite elements. (Epcot's Frozen ride might inspire you to rewatch that movie if it's been a while; I'm not sure anyone would feel that way about Avatar after riding Flight of Passage.)
As ever, it's worth remembering the timing of the park section, too. Like you mention, the MCU was still in its early days when Disney struck their deal for the World of Avatar licensing, so no one knew just how big that superhero franchise would get, and maybe the record-breaking box office numbers for Avatar seemed more promising (and less constrained by the terms of Universal's Marvel deal). But for me, the more critical point is that Pandora was greenlit before Disney acquired Star Wars, which meant they didn't really have another reliably great four-quadrant property that could have gone in that space instead. In a world in which Disney buys Lucasfilm a few years earlier, most likely Animal Kingdom is the home to something more like Galaxy's Edge, and Pandora never sees the light of day.
Because I'm so detached from Avatar as an actual movie at this point, I'll confess that my main interest in the sequels is to see if/how anything they add to the series lore ever makes its way into the theme park!
It's of course ironic that Disney seemed stupid for paying to license something they didn't own when they had Marvel and were about to own Star Wars and then, y'know, bought Fox and suddenly Avatar is a form of synergy after all. But a lot of these counterfactuals depend on to what degree the "purity" of Animal Kingdom would have been maintained. The Avatar deal predates the beginning of licensed attractions taking over EPCOT (Frozen Ever After, which you mention), and while it seems like Rohde's dream of a park focused on animals through a nature lens is dead with intentions of Zootopia moving into the park sometime in the future, would that have happened faster if the Star Wars deal had been made? Or would we have gotten a Star Wars land that leaned more into the aliens and wildlife side of things?
I think what interests me is that while Galaxy's Edge manages to give you some of the experience of being within a Star Wars story by way of the Rise of the Resistance ride experience and the overall theming of the space, Disney has comparatively struggled mightily to invest the same sensation into the Marvel areas, largely registering as Six Flags-esque weak retheming of existing areas. The two Guardians rides are the exception to this, but the lack of immersion in the Avengers Campuses points to the fact that as of yet, nothing about Marvel's theme park presence taps into the experience of the MCU's transmedia storytelling. I'm curious what the multiverse attraction planned for DCA does to rectify this failure, and whether it's actually possible to do compared to the work they've done with Star Wars and Avatar.
It's a fun thought experiment! In this hypothetical timeline I'm spinning where Disney acquires Lucasfilm a few years earlier and then decides that Star Wars is a bigger draw than Avatar for theming an Animal Kingdom expansion, I'd expect the resulting area to be more of a galactic nature preserve, yeah. There are certainly enough cuddly creature varieties in the franchise to populate something like that. (Although the park has long had elements that stretch the conservation lens -- Expedition Everest; the 50s roadside vibe of some of the DinoLand USA stuff -- so maybe the actual Galaxy's Edge rides wouldn't have been so different in this iteration.)
I haven't been out to California since any of the Marvel stuff was added there, but I'm wondering if the difficulty of immersive theming lies with the source material for that? Despite how I rag on Avatar the movie, it did present a gorgeous visual palate that, like Star Wars or Harry Potter for Universal, translates well to the theme park domain. The MCU gives us recognizable characters, costumes, and props, but I'd say it's struggled in establishing any settings that have become iconic in pop culture, or even just visually distinctive, to the same degree as those other IPs.
I think the last movie I sprung for 3D was the first Captain America movie, which was gimmicky and felt like it was done in post, and anyways I feel like I paid double the price of a ticket to have him smarmily throw his shield at my face a couple times. The hilarious part is I had a friend who went, didn't like wearing the glasses, so took them off, then complained the movie was too dark and blurry and fell asleep. What a quality $20 nap lol. I finished E8 of Dahmer last night, and the story is beginning it's descent, looping back stuff from earlier episodes and circling the drain. Man that show is brutal, but a perfect fit for Ryan Murphy (one wonders what took him this long to adapt the story, it's the most Ryan Murphy shit ever). And I find Evan Peters always compelling so have stuck around for him; reading how exploitative retelling this story over and over is on the families of the victims leaves me feeling pretty gross honestly.
I remember seeing Avatar in the theater in 3D very well for a couple reasons. The main one is that the 3D made my wife violently ill. Like literally she threw up multiple times and had to leave the theater. That's how we find out she's part of the whatever percentage of the population that gets sick when they watch 3D (I guess it has something to do with the frame rate or something?) I never understand why this doesn't come up more in discussions of the 3D format. How is it a good thing to have an exhibition format that makes some percentage of the populace physically ill? I stayed and watched the whole thing while my wife hung out with the theater employees because we figured we'd paid for the two 3 D tickets etc. I didn't get sick like her but honestly I did feel headache-y and weird the longer the movie went on. I've experienced this with other 3D movies too. Having the glasses on over a long period of time feels like I'm straining to read something the whole time and is tiring. Sometimes I take the glasses off for a break but then the movie looks all weird and it sort of makes me feel sicker and more nauseous. In conclusion: I don't like 3D
I'm just dropping in to say that I experienced Flight of the Passage for the first time this Summer, and it's now in my Top 3 Disney rides, period. As someone who never really understood other folks' enthusiasm towards "Avatar" as a film (the poor writing was always a speed bump for me on the way to the jaw-dropping visuals), I was genuinely surprised that a theme park attraction was what finally sold me on the majesty of Pandora as a fictional world.
I think I saw Avatar in 3D, but I don't remember being especially impressed (I was disappointed with the creature designs in particular, which were mostly "Earth creature + more legs"). It looked good, but I didn't get that sense of awe. Which probably isn't Avatar's fault, since 3D just doesn't move me in general. Maybe it's the CGI of it all - even when it's something legitimately impressive, I'm not sitting there wondering "how the hell did they do that?", because I have very little context for what producing CGI involves.
In hindsight I have neutral-to-fond memories of Avatar. While nothing new, it does distill the same beats as a lot of other, less good sci-fi adventures into a vibrant and pretty entertaining package.
The only other 3D movie that really sticks in my head as one that genuinely used the technology to its advantage, and not as a cheap post-conversion gimmick, is Coraline.
I remember coming out hot on the heels of Avatar, but after some Googling, it was actually in 2009 before Avatar! I will be going back to a cinema to check out The Way of Water, because I've always quite always enjoyed the 3D tech when done right, and with Avatar it was always en pointe.
Although I never saved up enough money to have a 3D TV to rewatch the original Avatar in 3D at home, I actually never rewatched it at home because I was waiting to have that "full experience" again. Now I've waited long enough to get it at the cinema again! I might check out the re-release too.
Avatar really WAS transporting to look at. After a decade of blah, muddy-looking CGI, I do think there will be interest in something as bright and beautiful as Avatar. I will also always hesitate before betting against James Cameron. So, I think the first sequel, at least, will make a lot of money.
For me, the question is how the timing of making it will affect the story. It was my understanding that they made all four of these sequels at the same time, for more efficient budgeting, like they did with the LotR trilogy. If that is true (I’m honestly not sure), then that suggests the scripts were all written at the same time, over a decade ago. Some of the story themes were off-puttingly retrograde even in 2009. The writers might have taken some of that feedback into account when writing the sequels, but they might still feel twelve years out of touch.
I personally won’t see the sequels, partly because something about this kind of body/consciousness-hopping has always creeped me out (that’s a me issue, though, not an Avatar issue), and partly because these are movies meant to been seen in the theatre and the pandemic got me out of the habit of going to the movies. I love my home theatre and lack of people kicking me in the back!
All that said, kudos on having written the only one of this sudden wave of positive articles about Avatar that hasn’t rubbed me the wrong way. Most of them annoy me because it’s so obvious that Disney is spending stupid amounts of money sponsoring articles in a sentiment-changing marketing campaign. The lack of memorable story or characters is why I haven’t thought about Avatar in years (except to intermittently bemoan that Zoe Saldana has spent a decade almost exclusively covered in paint) and the contrary part of me resents being forced to think about it after all this time.
I saw the original Avatar in 3D, and there was a wow factor for about the first 5 minutes, but after that my eyes adjusted and it felt like any other 2D experience.
The only movie that really impressed me in 3D (and granted, I don't watch many because they are usually a rip-off) was How To Train Your Dragon. The 3D in that movie really enhanced the feeling of flying. My heart leapt out of my chest multiple times from the feeling of flying.
I saw the second Fantastic Beasts movie in 4DX (after already having seen it in 2D on first viewing). Can't remember the last "normal" 3D movie I saw though.
LOL very fair. My wife and I (I guess girlfriend at the time) saw it together in 2D. Then two friends of ours who are equally big HP fans asked if we wanted to see it in 4D together a second time. It certainly was a different experience what with water in your face and the like. But yeah, pretty silyl in hindsight.
FWIW in the intervening four years, we didn't even see the third one in theaters; we waited until it was on HBO Max and even then waited a few more weeks.
Within it points out that "for its part, "Dances With Smurfs" is just a South Park joke that actually predates the release of Avatar." It's a great piece!
I resisted seeing Avatar until it was near the end of its run, I saw it in a dollar theater in 2-d. I have seen movies in 3-d, Hugo and the Adventures of Tin-Tin are two that stand out (also long ago Jaws 3 in 3-d), and it's kind of interesting for a little bit, but quickly loses it's novelty, so I don't feel like I missed much.
It was fine, I enjoyed it, but I also realized that the writing was something you could find in any number of Sci-Fi stories. You have to admire what it did for CGI, but it's not something that made a huge impression on me. Just another thing where I'm not in step with others, I suppose. Unobtanium.
I don't think I got the chance to see Avatar in IMAX back in its original release, but curious to go back to it, if I can convince Josephine to see it as well (when I asked for her opinion, she reminded me how much she hates 3D movies as she feels like she’s about to be hit in the face by things and so spends the full time flinching).
The two other 3D films that resonate with me is Prometheus and Doctor Strange. Prometheus because I thought I was watching one of the last films my theatre in Ottawa was releasing in film IMAX and expanded scope was still a unique thing to me, and Doctor Strange because the 3D was such an effective use, even if it was only shot in 2D. Combine that with the expanded scope sequences in an IMAX theatre, it was one of the few 3D movies I went back to on my parent's plasma 3DTV.
Not on-topic to the newsletter, but might be interesting to comment here: I finally continued my Shameless journey and oh boy is Season 9 (which I finished yesterday) rough. The show very clearly was never as good as it was in its first 4 or 5 seasons, but I still found a lot to like in seasons 6-8 (I happen to think that Trevor, and his actor Elliot Fletcher, is extremely unappreciated). Season 9, on the other hand, is EXTREMELY frustrating. I'm definitely still invested in most regular characters, and that makes it all the more infuriating to see the show either not do anything with them or do very ugly things to them. But following your reviews, Myles, has been a little bit of a lifeline and has helped me sort out my feelings as I'm watching.
I'm too invested now to stop watching, so I will definitely continue (and I want to watch Noel Fisher again next season) but I definitely need to pause for a bit and let myself rest and recover a little from it. That would've been unthinkable on the first five seasons (and even the next three), which for me is the ultimate indicator of how the quality of the show has changed.
Oh boy, good luck finishing that. I finished the whole series as it was airing because I have a similar investment towards finishing long-running shows but, boy, did Shameless really test my desire for completion. Unfortunately, it only gets worse from season 9 to my memory. The last Covid-themed season is pretty awful.
If you havent already, I reccomend checking out Jeremy Allen White's latest show, The Bear (also in Chicago)! In some ways similar vibe to Shameless, but much better
For me, great filmmakers have made great 3-D films that truly must be see at the cinema. When they are not, it feels like people denigrate some of these.
You already mentioned Ang Lee's Life of Pi which was stunning to watch.
Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity is the closest I will ever come to being in outer space.
Martin Scorsese's Hugo (which I knew nothing about prior to seeing) endlessly surprised and delighted my senses.
And my absolute favorite was Wim Wender's Pina. An amazing tribute documentary to one of the greatest choreographers and dancer of all-time, Pina Bausch. (I have seen 2 of her productions in person). Seeing dancing in 3-D was an immersion I never knew I needed and that I will never forget
I feel like I had a really awful experience seeing Gravity in theaters, although I'm now realizing I don't remember what my problem was? But yes, I feel like those are some of the others, but Gravity is the latest in 2013, and so you really do feel the weight of so many post-conversions that came afterwards.
Yeah, those are all pretty crap, and I avoid them if I can.
I think all of these come from this brief new golden age of 3D from the late 2000s/early 2010s when great filmmakers were really doing amazing stuff with the format. This quickly shifted to just making crappy 3D versions of almost all wide release movies in order to get higher ticket prices, as Myles points out
Agreed, but I still think some people missed these in 3-D and have no clue how amazing they were at the cinema
Oh, the last 3-D I saw was the re-release of Jaws, and it was fantastic.
Avatar as a theme park experience has made a more lasting impression on me than Avatar as a movie -- which is not entirely a fair comparison, since obviously the Pandora stuff is there every time you go to Animal Kingdom, whereas rewatching the film is a specific self-contained activity. But it's definitely one of those Disney World experiences that feels quite abstracted from the IP it's based on, up there with the soon-to-be-replaced Splash Mountain's loose affiliation with Song of the South for the typical parkgoer. Other modern Disney rides tend to really emphasize the plot beats and characters of their associated franchises in a way that the designers eschewed for the Pandora section. The theming is incredible, but it feels more like it's being presented as a blank canvas to write yourself into than a reminder/reproduction of any prior fan-favorite elements. (Epcot's Frozen ride might inspire you to rewatch that movie if it's been a while; I'm not sure anyone would feel that way about Avatar after riding Flight of Passage.)
As ever, it's worth remembering the timing of the park section, too. Like you mention, the MCU was still in its early days when Disney struck their deal for the World of Avatar licensing, so no one knew just how big that superhero franchise would get, and maybe the record-breaking box office numbers for Avatar seemed more promising (and less constrained by the terms of Universal's Marvel deal). But for me, the more critical point is that Pandora was greenlit before Disney acquired Star Wars, which meant they didn't really have another reliably great four-quadrant property that could have gone in that space instead. In a world in which Disney buys Lucasfilm a few years earlier, most likely Animal Kingdom is the home to something more like Galaxy's Edge, and Pandora never sees the light of day.
Because I'm so detached from Avatar as an actual movie at this point, I'll confess that my main interest in the sequels is to see if/how anything they add to the series lore ever makes its way into the theme park!
It's of course ironic that Disney seemed stupid for paying to license something they didn't own when they had Marvel and were about to own Star Wars and then, y'know, bought Fox and suddenly Avatar is a form of synergy after all. But a lot of these counterfactuals depend on to what degree the "purity" of Animal Kingdom would have been maintained. The Avatar deal predates the beginning of licensed attractions taking over EPCOT (Frozen Ever After, which you mention), and while it seems like Rohde's dream of a park focused on animals through a nature lens is dead with intentions of Zootopia moving into the park sometime in the future, would that have happened faster if the Star Wars deal had been made? Or would we have gotten a Star Wars land that leaned more into the aliens and wildlife side of things?
I think what interests me is that while Galaxy's Edge manages to give you some of the experience of being within a Star Wars story by way of the Rise of the Resistance ride experience and the overall theming of the space, Disney has comparatively struggled mightily to invest the same sensation into the Marvel areas, largely registering as Six Flags-esque weak retheming of existing areas. The two Guardians rides are the exception to this, but the lack of immersion in the Avengers Campuses points to the fact that as of yet, nothing about Marvel's theme park presence taps into the experience of the MCU's transmedia storytelling. I'm curious what the multiverse attraction planned for DCA does to rectify this failure, and whether it's actually possible to do compared to the work they've done with Star Wars and Avatar.
It's a fun thought experiment! In this hypothetical timeline I'm spinning where Disney acquires Lucasfilm a few years earlier and then decides that Star Wars is a bigger draw than Avatar for theming an Animal Kingdom expansion, I'd expect the resulting area to be more of a galactic nature preserve, yeah. There are certainly enough cuddly creature varieties in the franchise to populate something like that. (Although the park has long had elements that stretch the conservation lens -- Expedition Everest; the 50s roadside vibe of some of the DinoLand USA stuff -- so maybe the actual Galaxy's Edge rides wouldn't have been so different in this iteration.)
I haven't been out to California since any of the Marvel stuff was added there, but I'm wondering if the difficulty of immersive theming lies with the source material for that? Despite how I rag on Avatar the movie, it did present a gorgeous visual palate that, like Star Wars or Harry Potter for Universal, translates well to the theme park domain. The MCU gives us recognizable characters, costumes, and props, but I'd say it's struggled in establishing any settings that have become iconic in pop culture, or even just visually distinctive, to the same degree as those other IPs.
I think the last movie I sprung for 3D was the first Captain America movie, which was gimmicky and felt like it was done in post, and anyways I feel like I paid double the price of a ticket to have him smarmily throw his shield at my face a couple times. The hilarious part is I had a friend who went, didn't like wearing the glasses, so took them off, then complained the movie was too dark and blurry and fell asleep. What a quality $20 nap lol. I finished E8 of Dahmer last night, and the story is beginning it's descent, looping back stuff from earlier episodes and circling the drain. Man that show is brutal, but a perfect fit for Ryan Murphy (one wonders what took him this long to adapt the story, it's the most Ryan Murphy shit ever). And I find Evan Peters always compelling so have stuck around for him; reading how exploitative retelling this story over and over is on the families of the victims leaves me feeling pretty gross honestly.
I remember seeing Avatar in the theater in 3D very well for a couple reasons. The main one is that the 3D made my wife violently ill. Like literally she threw up multiple times and had to leave the theater. That's how we find out she's part of the whatever percentage of the population that gets sick when they watch 3D (I guess it has something to do with the frame rate or something?) I never understand why this doesn't come up more in discussions of the 3D format. How is it a good thing to have an exhibition format that makes some percentage of the populace physically ill? I stayed and watched the whole thing while my wife hung out with the theater employees because we figured we'd paid for the two 3 D tickets etc. I didn't get sick like her but honestly I did feel headache-y and weird the longer the movie went on. I've experienced this with other 3D movies too. Having the glasses on over a long period of time feels like I'm straining to read something the whole time and is tiring. Sometimes I take the glasses off for a break but then the movie looks all weird and it sort of makes me feel sicker and more nauseous. In conclusion: I don't like 3D
I'm just dropping in to say that I experienced Flight of the Passage for the first time this Summer, and it's now in my Top 3 Disney rides, period. As someone who never really understood other folks' enthusiasm towards "Avatar" as a film (the poor writing was always a speed bump for me on the way to the jaw-dropping visuals), I was genuinely surprised that a theme park attraction was what finally sold me on the majesty of Pandora as a fictional world.
I think I saw Avatar in 3D, but I don't remember being especially impressed (I was disappointed with the creature designs in particular, which were mostly "Earth creature + more legs"). It looked good, but I didn't get that sense of awe. Which probably isn't Avatar's fault, since 3D just doesn't move me in general. Maybe it's the CGI of it all - even when it's something legitimately impressive, I'm not sitting there wondering "how the hell did they do that?", because I have very little context for what producing CGI involves.
In hindsight I have neutral-to-fond memories of Avatar. While nothing new, it does distill the same beats as a lot of other, less good sci-fi adventures into a vibrant and pretty entertaining package.
The only other 3D movie that really sticks in my head as one that genuinely used the technology to its advantage, and not as a cheap post-conversion gimmick, is Coraline.
I remember coming out hot on the heels of Avatar, but after some Googling, it was actually in 2009 before Avatar! I will be going back to a cinema to check out The Way of Water, because I've always quite always enjoyed the 3D tech when done right, and with Avatar it was always en pointe.
Although I never saved up enough money to have a 3D TV to rewatch the original Avatar in 3D at home, I actually never rewatched it at home because I was waiting to have that "full experience" again. Now I've waited long enough to get it at the cinema again! I might check out the re-release too.
Avatar really WAS transporting to look at. After a decade of blah, muddy-looking CGI, I do think there will be interest in something as bright and beautiful as Avatar. I will also always hesitate before betting against James Cameron. So, I think the first sequel, at least, will make a lot of money.
For me, the question is how the timing of making it will affect the story. It was my understanding that they made all four of these sequels at the same time, for more efficient budgeting, like they did with the LotR trilogy. If that is true (I’m honestly not sure), then that suggests the scripts were all written at the same time, over a decade ago. Some of the story themes were off-puttingly retrograde even in 2009. The writers might have taken some of that feedback into account when writing the sequels, but they might still feel twelve years out of touch.
I personally won’t see the sequels, partly because something about this kind of body/consciousness-hopping has always creeped me out (that’s a me issue, though, not an Avatar issue), and partly because these are movies meant to been seen in the theatre and the pandemic got me out of the habit of going to the movies. I love my home theatre and lack of people kicking me in the back!
All that said, kudos on having written the only one of this sudden wave of positive articles about Avatar that hasn’t rubbed me the wrong way. Most of them annoy me because it’s so obvious that Disney is spending stupid amounts of money sponsoring articles in a sentiment-changing marketing campaign. The lack of memorable story or characters is why I haven’t thought about Avatar in years (except to intermittently bemoan that Zoe Saldana has spent a decade almost exclusively covered in paint) and the contrary part of me resents being forced to think about it after all this time.
I saw the original Avatar in 3D, and there was a wow factor for about the first 5 minutes, but after that my eyes adjusted and it felt like any other 2D experience.
The only movie that really impressed me in 3D (and granted, I don't watch many because they are usually a rip-off) was How To Train Your Dragon. The 3D in that movie really enhanced the feeling of flying. My heart leapt out of my chest multiple times from the feeling of flying.
I saw the second Fantastic Beasts movie in 4DX (after already having seen it in 2D on first viewing). Can't remember the last "normal" 3D movie I saw though.
You saw that movie TWICE?! (No judgment, but that is a thing to subject one's self to).
LOL very fair. My wife and I (I guess girlfriend at the time) saw it together in 2D. Then two friends of ours who are equally big HP fans asked if we wanted to see it in 4D together a second time. It certainly was a different experience what with water in your face and the like. But yeah, pretty silyl in hindsight.
FWIW in the intervening four years, we didn't even see the third one in theaters; we waited until it was on HBO Max and even then waited a few more weeks.
I saw it in the theaters in 2009 and thought it was visually impressive, but as you said very derivative.
South Park said it best - Dances With Smurfs.
Myles drops a link in the newsletter that touches on this very criticism.
https://emilyvdw.letterdrop.com/c/avatar-james-cameron-movie-review-good
Within it points out that "for its part, "Dances With Smurfs" is just a South Park joke that actually predates the release of Avatar." It's a great piece!
I mean, it was clearly based on the movie's trailers, so it's not like it was an unrelated South Park joke. But it wasn't a fully-developed critique.
I resisted seeing Avatar until it was near the end of its run, I saw it in a dollar theater in 2-d. I have seen movies in 3-d, Hugo and the Adventures of Tin-Tin are two that stand out (also long ago Jaws 3 in 3-d), and it's kind of interesting for a little bit, but quickly loses it's novelty, so I don't feel like I missed much.
It was fine, I enjoyed it, but I also realized that the writing was something you could find in any number of Sci-Fi stories. You have to admire what it did for CGI, but it's not something that made a huge impression on me. Just another thing where I'm not in step with others, I suppose. Unobtanium.
I don't think I got the chance to see Avatar in IMAX back in its original release, but curious to go back to it, if I can convince Josephine to see it as well (when I asked for her opinion, she reminded me how much she hates 3D movies as she feels like she’s about to be hit in the face by things and so spends the full time flinching).
The two other 3D films that resonate with me is Prometheus and Doctor Strange. Prometheus because I thought I was watching one of the last films my theatre in Ottawa was releasing in film IMAX and expanded scope was still a unique thing to me, and Doctor Strange because the 3D was such an effective use, even if it was only shot in 2D. Combine that with the expanded scope sequences in an IMAX theatre, it was one of the few 3D movies I went back to on my parent's plasma 3DTV.
Not on-topic to the newsletter, but might be interesting to comment here: I finally continued my Shameless journey and oh boy is Season 9 (which I finished yesterday) rough. The show very clearly was never as good as it was in its first 4 or 5 seasons, but I still found a lot to like in seasons 6-8 (I happen to think that Trevor, and his actor Elliot Fletcher, is extremely unappreciated). Season 9, on the other hand, is EXTREMELY frustrating. I'm definitely still invested in most regular characters, and that makes it all the more infuriating to see the show either not do anything with them or do very ugly things to them. But following your reviews, Myles, has been a little bit of a lifeline and has helped me sort out my feelings as I'm watching.
I'm too invested now to stop watching, so I will definitely continue (and I want to watch Noel Fisher again next season) but I definitely need to pause for a bit and let myself rest and recover a little from it. That would've been unthinkable on the first five seasons (and even the next three), which for me is the ultimate indicator of how the quality of the show has changed.
Oh boy, good luck finishing that. I finished the whole series as it was airing because I have a similar investment towards finishing long-running shows but, boy, did Shameless really test my desire for completion. Unfortunately, it only gets worse from season 9 to my memory. The last Covid-themed season is pretty awful.
If you havent already, I reccomend checking out Jeremy Allen White's latest show, The Bear (also in Chicago)! In some ways similar vibe to Shameless, but much better