James Cameron's Avatar

[A.F.F.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXF2nH4Z9sc&hd=1 New teaser in HD. Add Cameron's new 3D technology and this movie will create new standards. I just hope the plot will be as good as the looks of it.

[jimakos]

Unbelievable things!!
I can't wait to see this movie :p
Thanks A.F.F. for sharing that with us,I didn't know anything about the movie...

[Simmi]

Definately excited for this one. Can't wait to see how this looks through the 3-D glasses. And then ultimately how it transfers to Blu-Ray. It promises some real technical innovation. In a few years it will be standard but this looks like breaking new ground.

The plot sounds a bit confusing from what I can figure out. Humans are mining the Na'vi's (blue people's) planet for resources. Humans can have their own Avatar created so that they can co-exist with the Na'vi.

Sam Worthington is supposedly the next big thing so lets see what he can do. I think he is reportedly in every scene in the film.

Some of the set-pieces look insane. Can't wait. Cheers A.F.F.

[Hazell B]

Saw some of the trailer on TV.

Didn't move me one bit, I'm afraid to say :(

It's a shame as I was really looking forward to the film before seeing that clip.

[Mark in Oshawa]

James Cameron is a brilliant filmmaker...so I will wait until he hits the bigscreen.

[Simmi]

So who has seen this then?

Looks to be doing good business with word of mouth and unusually a lot of repeat viewings. Not heard a bad word about it.

Going to see it tomorrow at the IMAX.

[anthonyvop]

Not heard a bad word about it.

.
Well hear it is.

The plot was like if it was written by a 3rd grader who's parents voted for Al Gore.

The CGI is overwhelming but NOT Ground Breaking. ILM would have done a better job. In Fact Cammeron had to bring in ILM to fix a few scenes at the last minute.

It will make tons of money

[chuck34]

I thought it was ok. See it in 3D IMAX, that was really cool. The plot was very predictable, but writers as a whole seem to be pretty much out of ideas anyway I think. There were also a few animation issues. The horse things looked horrible when they were running.

I would recommend seeing it at a matenee at a 3D IMAX. Other than that wait for the blue ray.

[Simmi]

Already the 4th biggest grossing film in history! After something like 17 days. Should easily get to the number 2 spot behind Titanic. Jim Cameron knows how to make 'em!

Saw it today and loved it. Fair criticism about basic/predictable plot but I didn't care to be honest I was sucked in. I even guessed what the final shot would be a good five minutes before it happened. But the film has broad basic appeal. A bit sappy at times but I let that slide too. The film feels like an event. IMAX 3D tips it over the edge too. At times it was nothing short of breathtaking.

But even without the amazing visuals I think I would have still spent most the film with the same big grin on my face.

[Powered by Cosworth]

meh, it's all in the marketing.

[anthonyvop]

Already the 4th biggest grossing film in history! After something like 17 days. Should easily get to the number 2 spot behind Titanic. Jim Cameron knows how to make 'em!

That is not a great an accomplishment as the publicists would have you believe. When a movie charges $8-$14 for a ticket today of course it will rake in more money than a movie 30 years ago that only cost $2-$3 to see.

They never talk about the # of tickets sold. I sincerely doubt that more people saw Titanic than people who paid to see Star Wars or Gone with the Wind.

[gadjo_dilo]

Sorry guys but I can't be arsed with special effects.

[ShiftingGears]

I really enjoyed the movie.

[Simmi]

That is not a great an accomplishment as the publicists would have you believe. When a movie charges $8-$14 for a ticket today of course it will rake in more money than a movie 30 years ago that only cost $2-$3 to see.

They never talk about the # of tickets sold. I sincerely doubt that more people saw Titanic than people who paid to see Star Wars or Gone with the Wind.

Yeah no doubt ticket inflation makes it impossible to acturately compare figures between eras. But it does show it has beaten/will beat modern day cash cows like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter which is a great achievement. Cant imagine movie studios care about whether their movie beat any given classic from yesteryear. It's all about the here and now. Movie's cost more to make and they also gross more at the box office.

[veeten]

Of course, the real question of the film's profitibility lies in future video sales/rentals and the present offering in 'On Demand' capabilities in Cable, Satellite, and internet providers. Discounting possible losses in video piracy, one can make better projections of where the motion picture stands in overall returns.

As for the film's content, (actors, storyline/script, plot direction, etc.) that depends more on a subjective point of view, mainly what one likes and dislikes about it. Even if one visits several movie goer sites (imdb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.) to read other reviews and views, this still applies.

Use your own best judgement. :)

[MrJan]

It doesn't really matter how much a movie makes or how famous someone is, Mark still won't let us have pictures next to our names :D :D

[Hazell B]

Yeah no doubt ticket inflation makes it impossible to acturately compare figures between eras. But it does show it has beaten/will beat modern day cash cows like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter which is a great achievement.

No, altered-to-date box office figures are available. They calculate on today's price for every film and I think it's IMDb that publishes it all. Last time I read it I was deeply saddened to read the third Pirates of the Carribean film was the largest grossing movie ever (on box office alone, not DVD, etc). It's a poor, poor film on all levels, yet has put the most bums on seats worldwide.

Anyway, after seeing all the Avatar trailers, I've left well alone. Shame.

[veeten]

It doesn't really matter how much a movie makes or how famous someone is, Mark still won't let us have pictures next to our names :D :D

No, sorry. To have "Mr. Jan Yeo's Avatar", you're just going to have to book a flight to Hollywood and beg Universal, Warner Bros., or Fox for the chance, as Mr. Mark just won't do it. ;) :p

[gadjo_dilo]

Already the 4th biggest grossing film in history! After something like 17 days. Should easily get to the number 2 spot behind Titanic. Jim Cameron knows how to make 'em!


Cinema is an art not a business.
" You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..." :laugh:

[Ian McC]

Awesome film, best seen at your local(ish) IMAX

Loved it but very long!

[anthonyvop]

Awesome film, best seen at your local(ish) IMAX

Loved it but very long!

What was so good about it?

[F1boat]

In my opinion it was a very good movie. I was very negative about it, but the movie won me easily. It is very beautiful and with very touching and romantic story about love, humility and nature winning over greed and hatred. I would not rate it among my all-time favorites, but it is a very, very good story. I hope that it will beat "Titanic" and become #1 movie of all time.

[MrJan]

Went to see this last night (in 3D but not in Imax as the nearest one is Bristol). Bit of a carp film, a decent idea but let down by predictability and a lack of attention to dialogue/plot/ However the visuals were amazing and I think that it was worth seeing just for how good it looked. I was also very impressed by the 3D specs, they've moved on a lot and gave a really good depth of field. Parts when leaves were falling in front of characters looked superb :up: There were a few times that I noticed my eyes were a bit strained or out of focus but mostly it looked awesome.

As 3D looks like it might catch on there is one very important thing which I hope film makers understand. When they throw stuff from the screen it looks quite good......the first 4 or 5 times it happens. Every chuffing trailer kept throwing rocks or guns or missiles at me and I've already grown tired of it.

[NoahsGirl]

Saw this in 3-D and whilst visually spectacular, the plot was rather predictable and I guessed the ending from the start.

[ioan]

Eye candy for the brainless.

[christophulus]

I liked it, great spectacle and the 3D actually added something to the film rather than being a gimmick. Sure the plot isn't great but I'd gladly pay to watch it again.

[A.F.F.]

The biggest box-office hit, probably breaking the 2 billion in the near future.

I went to see it too and.... well, it looked great. 3D worked like a dream, although I had second thoughts about it. Unfortunately the plot was lame. I think I've seen this movie with Indians, Ewoks, etc... Plus, it was WAY too long. I couldn't help but getting bored.

Personally, I think Avatar is to 3D what Twister was to CGI. I'm interested to see what else they bring via 3D. Hopefully not another Avatar.

[Josti]

Went to see it a few days ago, and indeed the graphics are amazing. storywise, it's quite lame and a big bunch of clichés stringed together, although I thought the main character was pretty interesting to follow.

The 3D effect was ok, although, apart from a few expectations, I didn't really noticed it anymore after an half hour or so.

AFF, be aware of a sequal, no doubt it's coming. Btw, where have you been for the last few months?

[Captain VXR]

Went to see it a few days ago, and indeed the graphics are amazing. storywise, it's quite lame and a big bunch of clichés stringed together, although I thought the main character was pretty interesting to follow.

The 3D effect was ok, although, apart from a few expectations, I didn't really noticed it anymore after an half hour or so.

AFF, be aware of a sequal, no doubt it's coming. Btw, where have you been for the last few months?

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1628605/story.jhtml
probably two sequels :D
I loved Avatar and saw it twice. It so far, is the best and most involving film I have ever seen :s mokin:
I wonder what the next one will be called? Pandora's Box? or simply Avatar 2?

[F1boat]

It is now officially the biggest movie ever, inflation not taken into count. I am very very happy for Avatar. IMO this is the new great scifi movie, after the end of "Star Wars". Huge thanks for Jim and the actors and everyone who was behind this great, wonderful and touching movie.

[A.F.F.]

Btw, where have you been for the last few months?

I was on service break :)

[F1boat]

What do you guys expect from the sequels? I wonder will more aliens appear? Will we see the ruined Earth?

[A.F.F.]

Am I seriously twisted when I say that Zoe Saldana's character looked kinda hot ??

[F1boat]

I do believe that the whole race was very pretty. This is very impressive, as most pretty humanoids in fiction are like blond humans with pointy ears (elves) or pale humans who sparkle (vampires). Nothing wrong with this, but the Na'vi was the first humanoid who really seemed like alien and was not freaky.
IMO.

[306 Cosworth]

How can so many people enjoy this film, it's just beyond me. I've seen all the trailers and thought that just looks bollox. Anything with Sci Fi fake alien crap with blue people in just doesn't interest me one bit. :s

[Mark in Oshawa]

I read it was visually stunning, but a simplistic and unrealistic plot in some ways. Some don't like that it portrays the US military in a good way, but one should be cautioned into realizing this isn't now, and I have more faith in the people of the future than James Cameron does. A brilliant filmaker, but not the sharpest knife in the drawer with his plots...

[Josti]

I read it was visually stunning, but a simplistic and unrealistic plot in some ways. Some don't like that it portrays the US military in a good way, but one should be cautioned into realizing this isn't now, and I have more faith in the people of the future than James Cameron does. A brilliant filmaker, but not the sharpest knife in the drawer with his plots...

Well, it's a plot where everything conviently falls into place, like in many other love/heroism stories. Luckily the whole visual aspect made me accept that (plus certain details here and there that I liked) and I enjoyed it the full 2,5 hours.

Can't agree it portrays the military (or the human race for that matter) in a good way. Not taking into account the main character and his bunch, they're actually quite evil and in the end only out for money and destruction.

But I agree, what Cameron generally puts on the screen, despite a visual spectacle, it's not always too kind on the story.

[F1boat]

It is very simplistic to say that humanity was evil. It seems that the Company which orchestrated the attack was a "privateers" and were afraid by the media, so likely not all humans are evil. Keep in mind that not only Jake, other people also helped the Na'vi. But in the end yes, the story was the tragedy of native people, killed by greedy invaders. The allusions with the Indians are there, but in my opinion every people, who were invaded in the past, can understand such sad story.
Cosworth, I was just like you from the trailers, but after I watched the movie I was like "oh, ah, I'm in love". So give the movie a chance :)

[Mark]

Although I like 3D, I haven't been moved to go and see this film. I'll get it out on DVD eventually, but even then, part of the reason for seeing it is the visuals which will be largely lost on a 32" set.

[gadjo_dilo]

New teaser in HD. Add Cameron's new 3D technology and this movie will create new standards.

Well, it looks it really created a revolution in the means of visual expression and superlatives are not enough for this movie. But is this a really strong movie that could resist through time? Doubt it.

The enthuziastic cinephille in me reminds me that by using "unconventional" film techniques like deep focus, low angle shots, etc. , Orson Welles created a movie that at its time was considered as revolutionary: "Citizen Kane". But this movie is really significant and a real challange to our intelligence: heterogeneous scenes, not in chronological order, fragments of the life of the man invite us to combine them and to reconstruct them and permit us an investigation of the secret soul of a man through the works he has made, the words he has spoken, the many destinies he has smashedand.
Or to quote Welles himself : Without the cover of poetry the cinema would have remained a simple technical curiosity.

Can you tell me why Avatar could be a strong movie beyond the special effects?

[F1boat]

Can you tell me why Avatar could be a strong movie beyond the special effects?

Emotion, IMO, it tells a known story, but does it very well, uses a lot of emotion and has beauty in it - in the visuals and the story. In my opinion it has all the components of a great epic story - it is epic, dramatic, it has love, it has the sense of discovery of something new. You mention an acclaimed complicated movie, but you know, I believe that "Star Wars", which is similar to "Avatar", has also stood the test of time quite well. Actually all Cameron movies, excluding his awful debut in Piranha 2, are remembered - Aliens, Terminator 1 + 2 and of course Titanic. IMO "Avatar" can become a classic like them, or, if it starts a franchise, like "Star Wars".

[Mark]

Emotion, IMO, it tells a known story, but does it very well, uses a lot of emotion and has beauty in it - in the visuals and the story. In my opinion it has all the components of a great epic story - it is epic, dramatic, it has love, it has the sense of discovery of something new. You mention an acclaimed complicated movie, but you know, I believe that "Star Wars", which is similar to "Avatar", has also stood the test of time quite well. Actually all Cameron movies, excluding his awful debut in Piranha 2, are remembered - Aliens, Terminator 1 + 2 and of course Titanic. IMO "Avatar" can become a classic like them, or, if it starts a franchise, like "Star Wars".

Aliens, of course, was and still is one of the best films ever made! I don't think it has aged too much either. That doesn't apply to any of the other Alien films, however, including the first one.

Terminator has aged, but it's of its time so still very good.

Titanic, I'm not so sure, it's often said that films set at any other time than when they were made, age the worst, and I'm not sure Titanic is any exception here.

Star Wars has aged very badly, but then it's so brilliant that it doesn't matter! Only with the original trilogy however, the new three, well the least said about them..

[Daniel]

This made me chuckle :)

http://wtfoodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/avatar-pocahontas-500x486.jpg

[F1boat]

Aliens, of course, was and still is one of the best films ever made! I don't think it has aged too much either. That doesn't apply to any of the other Alien films, however, including the first one.

Terminator has aged, but it's of its time so still very good.

Titanic, I'm not so sure, it's often said that films set at any other time than when they were made, age the worst, and I'm not sure Titanic is any exception here.

Star Wars has aged very badly, but then it's so brilliant that it doesn't matter! Only with the original trilogy however, the new three, well the least said about them..

I disagree about the new Star Wars trilogy. To me the fallen hero Anakin was tons more interesting than the goodie goodie Luke Skywalker and the intricate politics of the decading Republic and the shades of gray between the dogmatic Jedi and the corrupting Sith were more interesting than the straight good vs evil war in the OT. However, my example with Star Wars was that a popular blockbuster movie can age very well not only visually, but also to remain very popular among fans. And I believe that Avatar can repeat this.

[Lousada]

Titanic, I'm not so sure, it's often said that films set at any other time than when they were made, age the worst, and I'm not sure Titanic is any exception here.

That is a very stupid statement. For example, (almost) all war movies are made after the war. So by that reasoning all war movies have aged terribly. That makes no sense.


Star Wars has aged very badly, but then it's so brilliant that it doesn't matter! Only with the original trilogy however, the new three, well the least said about them..

Here I disagree too. I don't think Star Wars aged. I think it is us that aged. Star Wars are basicly kids movies. Kids movies were people get killed and maimed, but still kids movies. 1 dimensional plot, 1 dimensional characters, 1 dimensional humour always present and a lot of action. Can an adult really say with a straight face that Ewoks or JarJar Binks belong in a movie for grown-ups?
I loved the old Star Wars... when I was 12. Now, I see them as amusing movies but I would not attach any emotional or artistic value to them. The new Star Wars I never liked.

[gadjo_dilo]

Emotion, IMO, it tells a known story, but does it very well, uses a lot of emotion and has beauty in it - in the visuals and the story. In my opinion it has all the components of a great epic story - it is epic, dramatic, it has love, it has the sense of discovery of something new. You mention an acclaimed complicated movie, but you know, I believe that "Star Wars", which is similar to "Avatar", has also stood the test of time quite well. Actually all Cameron movies, excluding his awful debut in Piranha 2, are remembered - Aliens, Terminator 1 + 2 and of course Titanic. IMO "Avatar" can become a classic like them, or, if it starts a franchise, like "Star Wars".

Star Wars is probably another technical success but it's a far cry from, let's say, Kubrick's meditations in "2001 A Space Odyssey" or from Solaris ( and when I say Solaris I mean the original version of Andrei Tarkowski ), movies that really are masterpieces.

I guess we have different points of view to evaluate the success of a movie and for me popularity is not a criteria. You probably see cinema as entertainment and an industry, I see it as an art.
I watch the movies you mentioned and they don't get me started , don't get me angry, I did not relent. I only can watch with a cool admiration computer effects, not even wondering what next.

[Lousada]

I guess we have different points of view to evaluate the success of a movie and for me popularity is not a criteria. You probably see cinema as entertainment and an industry, I see it as an art.
I watch the movies you mentioned and they don't get me started , don't get me angry, I did not relent. I only can watch with a cool admiration computer effects, not even wondering what next.

I agree completely with you :up:

[Mark]

That is a very stupid statement. For example, (almost) all war movies are made after the war. So by that reasoning all war movies have aged terribly. That makes no sense.


Why not? You look at the war movies made during the 1950's and then compare them to, for example, Saving Private Ryan (I know it's not that recent) and you tell me they haven't aged?

[F1boat]

Star Wars is probably another technical success but it's a far cry from, let's say, Kubrick's meditations in "2001 A Space Odyssey" or from Solaris ( and when I say Solaris I mean the original version of Andrei Tarkowski ), movies that really are masterpieces.

I guess we have different points of view to evaluate the success of a movie and for me popularity is not a criteria. You probably see cinema as entertainment and an industry, I see it as an art.
I watch the movies you mentioned and they don't get me started , don't get me angry, I did not relent. I only can watch with a cool admiration computer effects, not even wondering what next.

Vastly different tastes, we have. I do not see art and entertainment as necessary contradictory and I found the movies you quote to be tedious and pretentious, while "Star Wars" I follow with deep passion.
But I guess that there is enough part in the world for all kind of movies :)

[gadjo_dilo]

But I guess that there is enough part in the world for all kind of movies :)
However it's annoying to see mediocre movies getting important awards.

[gadjo_dilo]

Why not? You look at the war movies made during the 1950's and then compare them to, for example, Saving Private Ryan (I know it's not that recent) and you tell me they haven't aged?

A movie is like a lady. She may get older nicely or badly. Some movies, just like ladies, may show their age but are still interesting. :laugh:

[Daniel]

Why not? You look at the war movies made during the 1950's and then compare them to, for example, Saving Private Ryan (I know it's not that recent) and you tell me they haven't aged?
There's a difference between aging a movie from the look (ie the grain and colour) than whether it was of its time.

[gadjo_dilo]

There's a difference between aging a movie from the look (ie the grain and colour) than whether it was of its time.
Even on these circumstances a good old movie can beat a mediocre new one. 10 private soldats Ryan can't match the dramatism of the Odessa stairs massacre from "Battleship Potemkin" made by Serghei Eisenstein in 1925. The pram going down the stairs is still giving me thrills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoWmlbxSotc

[F1boat]

However it's annoying to see mediocre movies getting important awards.

For me its depressing to see boring movies get them, I guess it's a matter of taste.

[Mark in Oshawa]

However it's annoying to see mediocre movies getting important awards.

That is why I hope the Academy Awards bypass Avatar for acting and screenplay and best picture. It is a stunning movie visually, and quite interesting a concept BUT the plot is very simple and predictable and the acting was....well ok.

A well done story, where you have great dialogue, a great plot and great acting are the pictures that need to have Oscar consideration.

The Fans of Avatar can sound like religious zealots and to me that is just not on....

[F1boat]

Hah, I'd love for "Avatar" to win Best Picture, but I'm sure that they will award another drama movie :) But we are passionate, that's true. Like tifosi :)

[A.F.F.]

I guess we have different points of view to evaluate the success of a movie and for me popularity is not a criteria. You probably see cinema as entertainment and an industry, I see it as an art.

I used to think like that. Then I gave up.

[A.F.F.]

The Oscars are great fun to watch... or at least used to be. But it has nothing to do with awarding the best movies or actors or actressess. Best lobbing maybe.

I haven't seen all the performances from all the nominees from the category of best supporting actor. But I bet that Christopher Waltz is going to win it. Why? Best lobbing. As sure will be the Oscar for Gabourey Sidibe for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire. It would be interesting to see if they really are superb comparing to other performances from last year :/

[F1boat]

The Oscars are great fun to watch... or at least used to be. But it has nothing to do with awarding the best movies or actors or actressess. Best lobbing maybe.


Thumbs up. I have noticed that after the Oscars neither the mainstream movie fans nor the elitists are usually happy :)

[Lousada]

Why not? You look at the war movies made during the 1950's and then compare them to, for example, Saving Private Ryan (I know it's not that recent) and you tell me they haven't aged?

When people say a movie hasn't aged well, it's usually because the movie wasn't that good in the first place. A good movie is timeless. If we are going to compare, use the best movies from each timeperiod. Not one of the better from one period to the average of another period.
An example of a great warmovie from the '50s is Paths of Glory. Made in 1957 and it still holds up today. I'd even say it's a lot better than Saving Private Ryan.

[Mark in Oshawa]

When people say a movie hasn't aged well, it's usually because the movie wasn't that good in the first place. A good movie is timeless. If we are going to compare, use the best movies from each timeperiod. Not one of the better from one period to the average of another period.
An example of a great warmovie from the '50s is Paths of Glory. Made in 1957 and it still holds up today. I'd even say it's a lot better than Saving Private Ryan.

Saving Private Ryan had realism, a great story, historically accurate equipment and situations and great acting. To say a 1957 war movie is BETTER by a lot is a little silly IMO. Very few war movies made in the 50's and 60's went to the level of detail necessary to match Ryan.

Best War movies of the era after the war often used a lot of stock newsreel footage and close up action, because the cost of a realistic scene with the RIGHT equipment was just impossible. Even in the case of "Patton" one of my favourite movies, the Germans are using American tanks from the 50's , and not the standard Panzer 4 or early Tigers. The halftracks they use are actually American, and some of the scenarios are not quite right. No....very few war movies not made DURING the war get the equipment right. THAT is why Private Ryan is so good. Veterans of Omaha Beach walked out because it brought back all the memories because of its realism....that first 20 minutes takes all the glory out of war.

[gadjo_dilo]

Saving Private Ryan had realism, a great story, historically accurate equipment and situations and great acting. To say a 1957 war movie is BETTER by a lot is a little silly IMO. Very few war movies made in the 50's and 60's went to the level of detail necessary to match Ryan.

Best War movies of the era after the war often used a lot of stock newsreel footage and close up action, because the cost of a realistic scene with the RIGHT equipment was just impossible. Even in the case of "Patton" one of my favourite movies, the Germans are using American tanks from the 50's , and not the standard Panzer 4 or early Tigers. The halftracks they use are actually American, and some of the scenarios are not quite right. No....very few war movies not made DURING the war get the equipment right. THAT is why Private Ryan is so good. Veterans of Omaha Beach walked out because it brought back all the memories because of its realism....that first 20 minutes takes all the glory out of war.

Once again: all you said is part of the cinematographic techique and equipment which naturally evolved during time. What I want to underline is related to feelings and emotions that a movie can start.
"La grande illusion" made by Jean Renoir in 1937 will always be placed among the greatest war movies ( by critics of course, not by prophanes like us ) although if you watch it now it looks rudimentary from a technical point of view. I'm not in the position to judge if it's better then the Ryan one but it certainly passed the time exam.

But let's come back to our time and see what happens with wars films.
I confess I watched Saving Private Ryan on TV ( no offence but I never waste money to see Hollywood "superproductions " in cinemas ) and couldn't resist until the end. Despite its realism and genuine weapons I felt nothing and I'm not a war films fan.
But I also confess that I cried in the cinema hall watching "Joyeux Noel", about a real incident happened during the 1914 Christmas eve when Germans, French, and Scottish soldiers fraternized in several places on the front and shared a precious pause in the carnage with a fleeting brotherhood although they knew the consequences. Of course it wasn't a big display of weapons or spectacular battles but the message was so strong that it turned me on and I left the cinema with an imense satisfaction.

And now let's suppose I'd be so ( un)lucky to see again these movies over 100 years. Probably the " correct" technique of mr. Ryan would continue to say me nothing ( or at least I may laugh because it would be exceeded ) but the emotions caused by the other ones would be the same.