Exactly. And in point of fact, as a lifelong fan of great cinema I still regard 3D as largely a gimmick having more to do with charging event prices for theatre seats than creating lasting art. But fortunately, as I’ve previously noted I also think that Avatar would be almost as impressive without it.

jonboc, like most Americans I’ve already seen Dances With Wolves. Several times, in fact. It’s a well-meaning piece of work (if a little condescending towards the very people whose plight it ostensibly dramatizes), but since it also offers-up every plot contrivance and “noble savage” sort of cliche you lay (not entirely without justification) at the doorstep of Avatar, I’m not sure exactly what sort of point it is you’re trying to make. But it certainly doesn’t have much to do with which one of us is more easily impressed.

And jonboc, those 3 hours flew by for me. All three times. And make no mistake about it, more people than saw Star Trek once are going back for a second sitting of Avatar. It has already made 10% more than Star Trek’s entire domestic box office in only two weeks. That does not happen without repeated viewings. So either it’s that good, or in an age of ADD addled youth who can’t sit still for 5 minutes, they just think wearing 3D glasses is kool. I only wish Star Trek had been 20 minutes longer, perhaps parts of it would have made more sense.

There is no doubt in my mind that Paramount and Abrams are already talking about whether they can apply aspects of Avatar’s technology and success to the next Star Trek, which I am certain will not only be in 3D, but may well incorporate some elements of Avatar’s story, particularly the romance angle. You know I have to admit the 2nd time I saw it, I had a faint recognition of that episode where Kirk gets amnesia on the Native American planet. And you know what, that’s one of my favorite episodes because of the relationship Kirk has with the native woman only to lose her, and I think one of the reasons City on the Edge of Forever is one of the most universal favorites. Cameron is a genius as a storyteller and a filmmaker. If you didn’t like it then too bad for you. But don’t insult the rest of us who did by saying we don’t know the difference between a gimmick and a good film.

And, seriously–I don’t think you would find Avatar’s fiercest advocates trying to make a case for the originality of its story. I certainly haven’t seen anyone on these forums doing so. Rather, the plaudits have mostly been for the way that story was told, which certainly does include, but is not necessarily limited to, the film’s technical achievements. Sorry that the running time proved a bit much for you, but the good news is that you can take your strawman and go home now.

You and I are obviously on the same page regarding our reactions to Trek ‘09 and Avatar. An interesting thing to note, though, is that notables like Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and James Cameron himself have all publicly praised the Abrams take, calling it one of their favorite films of 2009. As someone who appears to be an industry insider yourself, what do you make of that?

Looking at your comments for Star Trek, I would say you brought more reverence for it, which biased your perception. You gave the characters and relationships far more reverence than the story commanded. I got misty-eyed over the opening 5 minutes when it become clear Kirk is going to sacrifice himself. But that is the first and last moment in the movie where that happens. Otherwise, the characters I know so well are merely 2-D characters of themselves. And talk about lack of originality, there is nothing in Star Trek I have not seen done in Trek or some other movie, usually better. But the film as a whole works, and I’m happy it does, because there would be no more Star Trek and it gives them a chance to try to go deeper next time. But having seen it with non-Trek friends, I can tell you, the film in no way affects them on the same level it does you. And it fails to have the same impact on me now that I know what’s coming.

I have seen Avatar 3 times now because there is so much to see, and I find myself responding the same way every time. Does Avatar have its flaws? Sure it does, just like Star Trek does. But lack of emotional impact is not one of them. I don’t believe for a minute that Star Trek was driven mostly by an unfamiliar audience. I think the fans played a huge part in its success. Avatar had no such fan base, and the fact that it has already earned twice as much as Star Trek, over $750 million in less than 2 weeks, speaks volumes for ho much this movie impacts its audience. And it’s not about the technological achievements of this film either. Yes it is amazing to look at, but it is powerful without being preachy.

3-D is not a gimmick here … I kept waiting for stuff to pop out at me and take me out of the moment the first time I saw it, but it doesn’t do that. It provides a depth and dimension that brings the world alive like no other film I have ever seen. I watched a free screening in 2-D for comparison and the story is just as powerful in either medium – I would equate it to watching It’s A Wonderful Life in B&W or colorized: the story doesn’t take a hit either way. But 3-D is integral for adding a layer of realism, that no movie has ever had before, and is truly the wave of the future. I could easily imagine seeing the Hurt Locker in 3-D for this reason and how much more powerful it might make that film.

As for Star Trek, I would truly love to see it win more recognition, and yes even get an oscar, but first it has to transcend being pop sci-fi and dig into deep soul searching stories. And what I saw this Summer didn’t come close to that. Is pure spectacle. Perhaps they should get James Cameron to direct the next Star Trek.

What exactly do you mean by this? The film was shot in 3D. That is an integral part of it. Exactly what “merits” are you judging it by?

I know, I get corcerned that I create a bad vibe when I mention how I felt the new movie has a weak plot despite liking the film.