Like any good nerd, I saw Avatar, the latest science fiction blockbuster in 3D from director James Cameron, over the weekend. And yes, those comparisons to Star Wars are spot on -- Avatar's special effects represent a tremendous technological breakthrough, one that raises the bar for every other blockbuster film.
For starters, it's a real demonstration of how movies can use 3D. In The New Yorker's brilliant (and not entirely flattering) profile of Cameron, Real3D chief executive Michael Lewis said Avatar may be the Citizen Kane of the 3D industry, and I think the movie lives up to that promise. Sure, there have been financially successful 3D films before, but it's mostly a gimmick that viewers won't miss when they're watching at home. (I actually go out of my way to avoid the 3D version of most films.)
In Avatar, on the other hand, the 3D is an integral part of the experience -- online trailers, and even 2D footage shown in theaters, really failed to capture how jaw-droppingly cool the movie looks. Anyone who doesn't watch Avatar on a 3D-enabled big-screen is watching an inferior version of the film, in the same way that anyone who watches Lawrence of Arabia on a dinky TV is missing out. That doesn't mean people won't do it, but Avatar makes a strong case for more 3D theater screens, as well as 3D adoption at home.
Beyond 3D, Avatar marks a real breakthrough in how computer-generated imagery (CGI) can create an immersive, otherwordly experience. The closest comparison may be the Lord of the Rings films, but director Peter Jackson famously used real-world locations in New Zealand to anchor the CGI. The Star Wars prequels probably used just as many computer effects as Avatar, but the effect was airless and video game-y. In Avatar, on the other hand, you can't feel where the CGI ends and the live footage begins. You can probably guess that the giant alien monsters were created by computers, but you don't see or feel any division between actors like Sam Worthington and the vast, computer-generated jungle.
So does Avatar mark a huge turning point in cinema, the same way Star Wars did? I'm not so sure. After all, Avatar reportedly made $73 million in North America over its opening weekend, and $232 million worldwide, which is good, but not great. (The East Coast snowstorm may be partially to blame.) Given the movie's astronomical $310 million product cost, plus $150 million for marketing, Avatar will have to continue bringing in the crowds if 20th Century Fox is going to make a real profit. Cameron's last feature film, Titanic, was a success because it topped the box office weekend after weekend. But unlike that movie's mass appeal romance between Leonard DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, the kissing scene between two blue-skinned aliens drew cringing hoots from a Friday-night crowd. And I don't think Hollywood executives are interested in Cameron-scale risks -- there were Titanic imitators, but none that cost as much.
So you can probably expect to see movies that borrow from the Avatar playbook, using 3D to create immersive science fiction adventures, but on a smaller scale. Personally, I'd prefer to see more moviemakers learn from District 9, a science fiction movie that came out this summer and was insanely profitable despite "only" making $203 million worldwide, because it only cost $30 million. (By the way, New Zealand effects house WETA can take some credit for both Avatar and District 9.) That's a much smaller risk, and District 9 is a better film to boot -- Avatar, like Star Wars, combines groundbreaking technology with a decent-but-unimpressive script.
Even an okay script is a relief after the cliches of Titanic, but for my money District 9 is the movie of the year.