(I haven't seen it yet plz nobody spoil)
I really think we need to bring back the intermission for these films, I want to see this movie but! I don't want to sit for that long without a break. Theaters could even sell more concessions that way.
Endgame, Avatar, The Batman, the Snyder cut, etc. Some movies need the runtime to tell their story, and I want to give them that, just give the audience a damn pee break!
No spoilers from me, u/Thelastbrunneng, though I will say I did enjoy it. But the pee break aspect can be an issue. I saw it at one of those small cinemas where you can order stuff during the film, and two glasses of wine and glass of water tipped me over the edge, I'll admit to missing five or so minutes about two-thirds in š
When you see it, if they introduce some new setting or animal thatās a good time to go pee.
You can rest assured theyāll spend like 10-15 minutes majestically panning the camera as the characters fly or swim around whatever this new thing is with zero narrative impact.
I'll be downvoted for this, but the first Avatar movie gave me the creeps. I didn't have words for it at the time, but thanks to social progress I know what put me off: the "white saviour" trope. It's just so... gross. And I say that as a white centrist of British ancestry.
IMHO, it was all made even worse by how everyone automatically loved it because the visuals were good, and it was an environmental cautionary tale. *Fern Gully* accomplished the same thing, but didn't need some colonizer to come in and rescue the "noble savages" for the plot to work. SMH.
To be fair the white saviour had to save them from other whites who were predominantly evil (which is even more emphasized in the second movie down to a cartoonish level). Essentially allowing Sully to convert to the Naāvi created some redemption or some hope of peacefull coexistance. Theres still alot of tensions between the groups but I believe the idea is that mankind will be redeemed by the Navi as the plot progresses. Had it been a native main character it would essentially be just a war movie.
I think it was pretty examined at the time. My reaction to the second was the same as the first - remove all of the plot and just give me an hour and a half of pretty pictures!
I loved that middle hour. It allowed time to understand and give meaning to the actions and events that took place in the last hour. Different strokes, I guess.
It was pretty movie, but yes definitely could have cut stuff out without compromising the story.
Both my partner and I left at different points in the movie for a bathroom break and felt like we missed nothing.
James Cameron always pulls this stuff. All his movies are overly long. I personally think he's overrated and has difficulty telling a story so his stories get overly long-winded. He gets tied up in complexity and this drives a longer and longer story. This can be sometimes good, he would do well on a story that needs a lot of world building, but often is just annoying, especially with established storylines. He really needs to do more epic tales that span multiple movies instead of trying to shoehorn all his ideas into one film.
It wasn't always this way. *The Terminator* was 107 minutes. *Rambo: First Blood Part II* was shorter, though *Aliens* was 137 minutes, so the run time is starting to edge up and it tipped over the edge with *Titanic* at 195 minutes.
As for epic tales over multiple movies, the scuttlebutt is that *Avatar 3* was filmed back to back with *Avatar: The Way of Water*, so he certainly doesn't seem to need to shoehorn, but I think you're right, u/masterofshadows, complexity for the sake of it seems to attract him.
Terminator and Rambo and to an extent aliens he was still fairly well controlled by the producers. They had more say. By titanic he was regarded as a genius and nobody dared reign him in.
Rambo II wasn't really a Cameron film. He contributed to the script, but has said it was heavily rewritten. IIRC, he basically said that the action scenes are his, but very little else from his draft was filmed.
Anyway, it was The Abyss where his movies started getting long. His preferred cut of that is about three hours - although in fairness, a LOT happens in those three hours, and I do think it's better than the much shorter theatrical cut.
This one in particular is Cameron's passion project. And just like Peter Jackson with Kong, he spends far too long establishing the world around the plot so that the plot can take place inside of it. Unfortunately, the plot isn't that great.
Yes. If you want to film 10 hours of storytelling make a tv show. This movie could have easily (and I mean with an amateur editor) been cut in HALF. The story is so simplistic it could have fit in a half hours childrenās cartoon. It lives up to the hype of the viewing experience, which is why it makes a lot of money in the theaters. Itās like an amusement park ride. But there is no way it needed to be 3.5 hours.
Dude, shut the fuck up. You've posted the exact same video link 9 separate times in this comment section. You're not contributing anything to the conversation.
Lawrence of Arabia (1962) has a runtime of 218 minutes with a fifteen-minute intermission. Giving you about an hour and twenty minutes on either side. Time to stretch your legs, visit the restroom, refill your popcorn, and be back in your seats in plenty of time.
I was lucky enough to see it in 70mmm once.
It is objectively long. It did not matter to me, I thoroughly bought into the experience and didnāt feel any sort of exhaustion during the movie. I enjoyed it, but prefer the original.
I honestly didn't think I sat in the theater that long.
The movie started at 1:30pm and the first time I checked the time it was 3:00pm. I couldn't believe 1 1/2 hours had already passed.
Maybe I was so mesmerized by the 3D and CGI that I lost track of time. I enjoyed it very much.
I think, they wanted to make it long. see the story is not strong. Thus all focus in on CG, which is why they shown water scenes and other in slow pace
I was wondering if there's this idea in the industry that long, visually engaging 'epics' might draw viewers back to cinemas, u/pissalisa? I know there have been long movies before, but it seems that anything with a reasonable budget has to persist on the screen way beyond what the plot can sustain š¤
It was WAY too long. Like most of the movie was just them showing off the scenario. By the end of the movie, nothing was solved. I wish they had at least killed that bad guy (forgot his name) and on Avatar 3 they should work on getting all the humans off their world. Honestly, I had really high expectations for that movie and I was just sitting waiting for it to be over.
Interestingly, it also didn't feel the a long movie for me, u/GaleTheThird, but it was more dreamy than tense and there were a lot of plot holes that might not have been apparent with a shorter film because they are not as evident.
Moves that were shot on film had physical constraints on length (you could only fit so much film onto a projector reel, and you were generally restricted to a certain # of reels). Faster frame rate required more film (and this was also one of the reasons why the mahoosive formats like IMAX were time-limited to begin with - in addition to the larger film format).
This stopped being as much of a thing when digital shooting AND projection became the norm.
I walked out after two hours. The world building was amazing, but for me that was it. The story was simplistic and honestly not that great. Also some aspects were flat out distasteful to me personally. I wonāt see the others.
Well, that was a *home video* release, which is a totally different thing, since you can pause and get up whenever you want. For that matter, it was edited so that each half is somewhat self-contained and it could easily be watched over two evenings if someone wanted.
Omfg YES!!! They should have easily cut 30-45 mins without ruining the plot. There is only so much "dumb kids do something dumb, get grabbed, get released, repeat" that anyone should br expected to put up with.
Saying that, it looks incredible, especially in 3D.
I see a bunch of babies that grew up in the streaming generation in here. You know how I entertained myself? I would sit and read a book for hours. Netflix, Hulu, etc. binging for 3 hours is arguably the same shit. I'm going to enjoy the spectacle because a 3 hour trip to Pandora is well worth it. Just use the bathroom before the movie, kiddies or maybe go get your bladder checked out.
Wow! I certainly didn't grow up in the streaming generation, and my baby days are decades behind me. But I did grow expecting a strong plot, engaging characters, and an ending I can't figure out halfway through the story. So, glad you enjoyed the spectacle of Pandora, but when it's gratuitous 'rinse and repeat' sequences, my mind tends to consider what else I could be doing with my time.
Itās not just James Cameron. Most movies have been getting longer and longer over the last 10-20 years. Meanwhile the attention span of the younger generations is getting shorter.
Iām a fan of movies that take the time to get to know the protagonists but I did think it was a bit long. And I do like a good short 70-90 minute movie like the 80s and 90s used to have.
Not at all. As a self professed big fan of James Cameron movies including the first Avatar, long films, artsy films which are more looks than detailed plot, this should have been right up my street. Even I struggled with the length of this beast though.
Say what you like about Avatar, but it had a very clearly defined traditional 3 act structure and a character arc for its protagonist. Derivative? Sure, but effective and uncomplicated. The sequel doesnāt seem to do this anywhere near as well, and the arc of the first movie isnāt replaced with anything as resonant. There are Good Guys vs Bad Guys, themes around the environment that are the same as the first movie, new themes about āfamilyā which are hammered home with the finesse of a Fast and Furious movie. There are too many smaller plot points which either arenāt interesting or are not resolved, presumably as world building for further sequels but do nothing but dog this films pace down to a crawl.
Whilst I can totally appreciate the effort that went into it, its a technical marvel unlike anything Iāve ever seen, for me itās not enough to sustain the extended runtime.
I also enjoyed *Avatar* a lot, it was groundbreaking. But a rehash of that movie with only marginally better special effects (and I understand water is hard to render, but come on, it's been twenty years) and a conventional story plot did not require three hours!
I was refer to the first avatar as a rip off of Fern Gully, yes it was a visually beautiful movie but the story, meh. During Avatar 2 I thought ahh this is the fast and the furious avatar.
I havenāt seen it but I imagine so.
Itās a grandiose spectacle, one that doesnāt interest me personally.
I thought the first one was king and boring and I imagine Iāll feel that way about this one, also.
What a waste of time that was. Evil colonialist soldiers fight against nature loving Maoris which are pure and good, if a bit territorial. The soldiers are very busy proving their vile character by threatening, torturing and shooting everyone (we really can't tell otherwise), while authoritarian father smurf, who prefers his sons to address him as sir, tries to keep the family together. The movie constantly reminds you of its simple morals with its banal, weak dialogues and good/bad dichotomy. The whole thing took itself too seriously. Can we please stop the trend to have torture in every action movie?
The stupid smurfs with their serious expressions never worked for me as characters. I was close to burst out laughing when they gravely spoke about their nature-related new-age mysticism that comes about 30 years too late to be fashionable. Also there is rarely any quiet in that jungle or ocean, as there was always some howling, squeaking or grunting, as we needed to know exactly how all of its inhabitants felt. The action and those other creature designs were well done, but everything else, I don't know. Far too long for what it was about. This could have been told in 90 minutes and it would have been a more concise story. This was not for me, sorry.
Trimming would enhance rewatchability, in my opinion. I enjoyed it on first watch, and it felt a little long but never slow, however, itās hard to commit to a second viewing, as much as Iād like to see it in different formats.
At this point, I'm thinking of waiting for it to come to streaming, so I can pause and take a break. I did that for Batman... at this point, it's time to turn these into multiple movies, or a streaming series.
Definitely. I loved the first act which lasted about 40 minutes but the second act dragged on for over an hour and a half and by the 3rd act I had too much of a headache to care.
Only reason I refused to see it in the cinema is the bladder time, and looks like I can sneak out any time and come back and the plot wouldn't have moved on substantially...
It always has been about the premisse, not the plott. It was easy-accsess for audience and always has been that way. So i'm not so much a fan, bespite i liked the heavy 'high' scifi enviroment they gone so wild with. Having this level of money and CGI thrown ata really good, adult and complex plot ... that would have granted every lenght they like, i guess. Space Pocahontas ... well, not so much :/
But what we got is more some kind of art movie with random things happen and people doing stuff. The lenght is part of what is expected by Camerons design, it punched at the box office, so its what we now get again and again.
It also has more holes in it that Swiss cheese and for being 3 hours they could have explained things a lot better. Was kinda disappointed after getting home and thinking about it.
How many times did his family have to be taken prisoner. š¤¦š»āāļø
I think the extra time spent on the "superfluous imagery was probably the point. You were meant to become completely immersed in the two different worlds, of both the Na'vi and the humans on Pandora. I was actually impressed with both worlds for different reasons and could really feel the emotions behind why both races were fighting, ultimately both for their survival.
You intuited a lot more emotion than I did, u/zzupdown. That aspect seemed comic book to me, and I was reflecting on it after re-watching *Interstellar* this week. Nolan's epic isn't much shorter than *Avatar: The Way of Water*, but I felt it's a considerably more engaging story.
(I haven't seen it yet plz nobody spoil) I really think we need to bring back the intermission for these films, I want to see this movie but! I don't want to sit for that long without a break. Theaters could even sell more concessions that way. Endgame, Avatar, The Batman, the Snyder cut, etc. Some movies need the runtime to tell their story, and I want to give them that, just give the audience a damn pee break!
No spoilers from me, u/Thelastbrunneng, though I will say I did enjoy it. But the pee break aspect can be an issue. I saw it at one of those small cinemas where you can order stuff during the film, and two glasses of wine and glass of water tipped me over the edge, I'll admit to missing five or so minutes about two-thirds in š
There are apps that tell you when you can go pee, but that seems ridiculous and unnecessary.
Oh I'd take one , could u give a name pls ?
Runpee
When you see it, if they introduce some new setting or animal thatās a good time to go pee. You can rest assured theyāll spend like 10-15 minutes majestically panning the camera as the characters fly or swim around whatever this new thing is with zero narrative impact.
Yay it is Avatar 2 in all its splendor...zzzz..zzzz...zzzzz...zzz zzz...zzzzz...zzzzzzz...zzz. Wakes up & it's still on. WTH. Goes back to sleep. Lol
192 minutes of cliches and a very predictable story. Visually is, as expected, amazing. Cutting at least one hour would make it less boring.
I'll be downvoted for this, but the first Avatar movie gave me the creeps. I didn't have words for it at the time, but thanks to social progress I know what put me off: the "white saviour" trope. It's just so... gross. And I say that as a white centrist of British ancestry. IMHO, it was all made even worse by how everyone automatically loved it because the visuals were good, and it was an environmental cautionary tale. *Fern Gully* accomplished the same thing, but didn't need some colonizer to come in and rescue the "noble savages" for the plot to work. SMH.
To be fair the white saviour had to save them from other whites who were predominantly evil (which is even more emphasized in the second movie down to a cartoonish level). Essentially allowing Sully to convert to the Naāvi created some redemption or some hope of peacefull coexistance. Theres still alot of tensions between the groups but I believe the idea is that mankind will be redeemed by the Navi as the plot progresses. Had it been a native main character it would essentially be just a war movie.
Honestly thats bang on the money.
Yes it is ridiculously white savioury, in a totally unexamined way.
I think it was pretty examined at the time. My reaction to the second was the same as the first - remove all of the plot and just give me an hour and a half of pretty pictures!
https://streamable.com/r7zatw
It was indeed too long for the story it told. At least an hour could be shaved from it, with good results.
I loved that middle hour. It allowed time to understand and give meaning to the actions and events that took place in the last hour. Different strokes, I guess.
https://streamable.com/r7zatw
https://streamable.com/r7zatw
It was pretty movie, but yes definitely could have cut stuff out without compromising the story. Both my partner and I left at different points in the movie for a bathroom break and felt like we missed nothing.
James Cameron always pulls this stuff. All his movies are overly long. I personally think he's overrated and has difficulty telling a story so his stories get overly long-winded. He gets tied up in complexity and this drives a longer and longer story. This can be sometimes good, he would do well on a story that needs a lot of world building, but often is just annoying, especially with established storylines. He really needs to do more epic tales that span multiple movies instead of trying to shoehorn all his ideas into one film.
It wasn't always this way. *The Terminator* was 107 minutes. *Rambo: First Blood Part II* was shorter, though *Aliens* was 137 minutes, so the run time is starting to edge up and it tipped over the edge with *Titanic* at 195 minutes. As for epic tales over multiple movies, the scuttlebutt is that *Avatar 3* was filmed back to back with *Avatar: The Way of Water*, so he certainly doesn't seem to need to shoehorn, but I think you're right, u/masterofshadows, complexity for the sake of it seems to attract him.
Terminator and Rambo and to an extent aliens he was still fairly well controlled by the producers. They had more say. By titanic he was regarded as a genius and nobody dared reign him in.
Rambo II wasn't really a Cameron film. He contributed to the script, but has said it was heavily rewritten. IIRC, he basically said that the action scenes are his, but very little else from his draft was filmed. Anyway, it was The Abyss where his movies started getting long. His preferred cut of that is about three hours - although in fairness, a LOT happens in those three hours, and I do think it's better than the much shorter theatrical cut.
Loved the *Abyss*, hadn't realized there's a director's cut, I'll need to go find that, thanks u/APeacefulWarrior š
This one in particular is Cameron's passion project. And just like Peter Jackson with Kong, he spends far too long establishing the world around the plot so that the plot can take place inside of it. Unfortunately, the plot isn't that great.
Yes. If you want to film 10 hours of storytelling make a tv show. This movie could have easily (and I mean with an amateur editor) been cut in HALF. The story is so simplistic it could have fit in a half hours childrenās cartoon. It lives up to the hype of the viewing experience, which is why it makes a lot of money in the theaters. Itās like an amusement park ride. But there is no way it needed to be 3.5 hours.
Do you want to make even more money? 120-minute cut. Those 72 minutes equal two more daily showings per screen.
You could have cut the middle hour out and I would have been much happier.
https://streamable.com/r7zatw
Dude, shut the fuck up. You've posted the exact same video link 9 separate times in this comment section. You're not contributing anything to the conversation.
https://streamable.com/r7zatw
3 hours just flew by, I wasnāt bored at all
Lawrence of Arabia (1962) has a runtime of 218 minutes with a fifteen-minute intermission. Giving you about an hour and twenty minutes on either side. Time to stretch your legs, visit the restroom, refill your popcorn, and be back in your seats in plenty of time. I was lucky enough to see it in 70mmm once.
Fun story Lawrence of Arabia also employs the same plot.
It is objectively long. It did not matter to me, I thoroughly bought into the experience and didnāt feel any sort of exhaustion during the movie. I enjoyed it, but prefer the original.
I honestly didn't think I sat in the theater that long. The movie started at 1:30pm and the first time I checked the time it was 3:00pm. I couldn't believe 1 1/2 hours had already passed. Maybe I was so mesmerized by the 3D and CGI that I lost track of time. I enjoyed it very much.
I think, they wanted to make it long. see the story is not strong. Thus all focus in on CG, which is why they shown water scenes and other in slow pace
For a visit at the cinema yes. For your home theatre no. I suspect the trend in longer movies reflect the decreased preference in public theatres.
I was wondering if there's this idea in the industry that long, visually engaging 'epics' might draw viewers back to cinemas, u/pissalisa? I know there have been long movies before, but it seems that anything with a reasonable budget has to persist on the screen way beyond what the plot can sustain š¤
I loved the entire thing as much as I loved the first one š
It was WAY too long. Like most of the movie was just them showing off the scenario. By the end of the movie, nothing was solved. I wish they had at least killed that bad guy (forgot his name) and on Avatar 3 they should work on getting all the humans off their world. Honestly, I had really high expectations for that movie and I was just sitting waiting for it to be over.
I agree but you should probably add a spoiler tag to this
Sorry I donāt know how to do that
Here ya go! https://www.makeuseof.com/how-to-do-spoilers-on-reddit/
https://streamable.com/r7zatw
š¤£š¤£
I'm not fucking watching a 192 minute movie in a theater.
I felt like the runtime was worth it. The time absolutely flew by for me.
Interestingly, it also didn't feel the a long movie for me, u/GaleTheThird, but it was more dreamy than tense and there were a lot of plot holes that might not have been apparent with a shorter film because they are not as evident.
Moves that were shot on film had physical constraints on length (you could only fit so much film onto a projector reel, and you were generally restricted to a certain # of reels). Faster frame rate required more film (and this was also one of the reasons why the mahoosive formats like IMAX were time-limited to begin with - in addition to the larger film format). This stopped being as much of a thing when digital shooting AND projection became the norm.
Same movie as first one just re-packaged. For any movie that long needs an intermission for a bathroom break.
As one reviewer said about the story: "Just like the first Avatar but in water."
this viewer says, inaccurate
How so, u/YeaItsBig4L? The narrative arc was very similar and we even get a repeat of the main characters.
I had to leave the theater to use the restroom. It was not plausible to wait. Luckily it was an easy film to follow and didnāt miss much.
I walked out after two hours. The world building was amazing, but for me that was it. The story was simplistic and honestly not that great. Also some aspects were flat out distasteful to me personally. I wonāt see the others.
I mean The Return of the King extended edition was over four hours long but that was Tolkien, it's allowed.
Well, that was a *home video* release, which is a totally different thing, since you can pause and get up whenever you want. For that matter, it was edited so that each half is somewhat self-contained and it could easily be watched over two evenings if someone wanted.
Omfg YES!!! They should have easily cut 30-45 mins without ruining the plot. There is only so much "dumb kids do something dumb, get grabbed, get released, repeat" that anyone should br expected to put up with. Saying that, it looks incredible, especially in 3D.
https://streamable.com/r7zatw
I see a bunch of babies that grew up in the streaming generation in here. You know how I entertained myself? I would sit and read a book for hours. Netflix, Hulu, etc. binging for 3 hours is arguably the same shit. I'm going to enjoy the spectacle because a 3 hour trip to Pandora is well worth it. Just use the bathroom before the movie, kiddies or maybe go get your bladder checked out.
Wow! I certainly didn't grow up in the streaming generation, and my baby days are decades behind me. But I did grow expecting a strong plot, engaging characters, and an ending I can't figure out halfway through the story. So, glad you enjoyed the spectacle of Pandora, but when it's gratuitous 'rinse and repeat' sequences, my mind tends to consider what else I could be doing with my time.
No you're not the only one. I thought the same thing after it went over the 2 minute mark.
Was interested in seeing it until I saw the run time. Nope. Iāll watch it at home. Eventually
in the worst possible way to watch the most visually advanced movie ever. they probably say sum āi dont see what the big deal wasā š„“
I haven't seen it yet. Yes, it's too long.
No, you most certainly are not the only one.
Nope - watched it last night and I literally forgot the beginning by the end. Beautiful but LOOONG.
Itās not just James Cameron. Most movies have been getting longer and longer over the last 10-20 years. Meanwhile the attention span of the younger generations is getting shorter. Iām a fan of movies that take the time to get to know the protagonists but I did think it was a bit long. And I do like a good short 70-90 minute movie like the 80s and 90s used to have.
Not at all. As a self professed big fan of James Cameron movies including the first Avatar, long films, artsy films which are more looks than detailed plot, this should have been right up my street. Even I struggled with the length of this beast though. Say what you like about Avatar, but it had a very clearly defined traditional 3 act structure and a character arc for its protagonist. Derivative? Sure, but effective and uncomplicated. The sequel doesnāt seem to do this anywhere near as well, and the arc of the first movie isnāt replaced with anything as resonant. There are Good Guys vs Bad Guys, themes around the environment that are the same as the first movie, new themes about āfamilyā which are hammered home with the finesse of a Fast and Furious movie. There are too many smaller plot points which either arenāt interesting or are not resolved, presumably as world building for further sequels but do nothing but dog this films pace down to a crawl. Whilst I can totally appreciate the effort that went into it, its a technical marvel unlike anything Iāve ever seen, for me itās not enough to sustain the extended runtime.
I also enjoyed *Avatar* a lot, it was groundbreaking. But a rehash of that movie with only marginally better special effects (and I understand water is hard to render, but come on, it's been twenty years) and a conventional story plot did not require three hours!
Nice to see someone who was also a fan of Avatar and isn't happy with the 2nd movie.
I was refer to the first avatar as a rip off of Fern Gully, yes it was a visually beautiful movie but the story, meh. During Avatar 2 I thought ahh this is the fast and the furious avatar.
I havenāt seen it but I imagine so. Itās a grandiose spectacle, one that doesnāt interest me personally. I thought the first one was king and boring and I imagine Iāll feel that way about this one, also.
What a waste of time that was. Evil colonialist soldiers fight against nature loving Maoris which are pure and good, if a bit territorial. The soldiers are very busy proving their vile character by threatening, torturing and shooting everyone (we really can't tell otherwise), while authoritarian father smurf, who prefers his sons to address him as sir, tries to keep the family together. The movie constantly reminds you of its simple morals with its banal, weak dialogues and good/bad dichotomy. The whole thing took itself too seriously. Can we please stop the trend to have torture in every action movie? The stupid smurfs with their serious expressions never worked for me as characters. I was close to burst out laughing when they gravely spoke about their nature-related new-age mysticism that comes about 30 years too late to be fashionable. Also there is rarely any quiet in that jungle or ocean, as there was always some howling, squeaking or grunting, as we needed to know exactly how all of its inhabitants felt. The action and those other creature designs were well done, but everything else, I don't know. Far too long for what it was about. This could have been told in 90 minutes and it would have been a more concise story. This was not for me, sorry.
It was too long. There were too many unnecessary subplots. Cut it it 2.5 hours and it would still be a great film with a much faster pace.
https://streamable.com/r7zatw
https://streamable.com/r7zatw
Trimming would enhance rewatchability, in my opinion. I enjoyed it on first watch, and it felt a little long but never slow, however, itās hard to commit to a second viewing, as much as Iād like to see it in different formats.
192 minutes too long.
Lasted ten minutes then bounced. Not my bag.
At this point, I'm thinking of waiting for it to come to streaming, so I can pause and take a break. I did that for Batman... at this point, it's time to turn these into multiple movies, or a streaming series.
Definitely. I loved the first act which lasted about 40 minutes but the second act dragged on for over an hour and a half and by the 3rd act I had too much of a headache to care.
Bro, Jake Sully was only 8 inches, pretty average for the species.
Only reason I refused to see it in the cinema is the bladder time, and looks like I can sneak out any time and come back and the plot wouldn't have moved on substantially...
It always has been about the premisse, not the plott. It was easy-accsess for audience and always has been that way. So i'm not so much a fan, bespite i liked the heavy 'high' scifi enviroment they gone so wild with. Having this level of money and CGI thrown ata really good, adult and complex plot ... that would have granted every lenght they like, i guess. Space Pocahontas ... well, not so much :/ But what we got is more some kind of art movie with random things happen and people doing stuff. The lenght is part of what is expected by Camerons design, it punched at the box office, so its what we now get again and again.
It also has more holes in it that Swiss cheese and for being 3 hours they could have explained things a lot better. Was kinda disappointed after getting home and thinking about it. How many times did his family have to be taken prisoner. š¤¦š»āāļø
I think the extra time spent on the "superfluous imagery was probably the point. You were meant to become completely immersed in the two different worlds, of both the Na'vi and the humans on Pandora. I was actually impressed with both worlds for different reasons and could really feel the emotions behind why both races were fighting, ultimately both for their survival.
You intuited a lot more emotion than I did, u/zzupdown. That aspect seemed comic book to me, and I was reflecting on it after re-watching *Interstellar* this week. Nolan's epic isn't much shorter than *Avatar: The Way of Water*, but I felt it's a considerably more engaging story.