Fangirl Status in Jeopardy Over Avatar

Oh no! I think my fangirl status may be in jeopardy thanks to Avatar. I saw the film last night with my friend, Jen. We went to the 3D Imax experience, we didn't go cheap, but even with the 'experience', I left the viewing feeling like it was pretty good, but not great... Not like Star Wars great, or the Dark Knight great, or even Star Trek (2009) great...or, 'gulp', Titanic great. Yes.I.liked.Titanic.better...What does that say about me and my fangirl membership? Or is it the film? This isn't anything personal against James Cameron. I very much enjoy his films, and I feel he tells a good story, but doesn't necessarily write a good story. He directs films well, but usually doesn't direct actors well.
So if it wasn't a dislike of JC, then why did Avatar not 'thrill' me? My first reaction was that it was missing that all important, indescribable 'magic'. I'm very fond of magic, if you couldn't tell by my other posts. Avatar was missing something...now it wasn't missing anything visually, it just seemed like a typically good vs. evil story told on a very interesting planet. I guess that is one of my issues, we don't get into enough of what Pandora is. I know. Jim is saving that for the sequel, but I really would've rather seen 2 hours and 42 minutes of the Na'vi and Pandora than the 35 minute battle at the end that was like pretty much every other loud movie I've seen. Please- don't think that I'm about to compare JC with Michael Bay, the evil of all directors, no way. JC is truly a genus, in the areas I mentioned above and has actual talent.
As far as the story goes, I had trouble buying into the belief that the military really needed to strike an offensive against the Na'vi. They had already destroyed the Hometree and could mine all the Unobtanium (dumbest name for an element, ever, okay- that's nitpicking) that they wanted. Jen said that it was the general's ego that was behind his orders to strike an offensive against the Na'vi. It just seemed unnecessary to me for about 20 minutes and that didn't add to my enjoyment of the film. At times I felt like I had missed something important, it was like watching a book adaption where the film leaves out some explanations expecting the audience to already know important details. For example, it would have been nice to have one line where someone explained about the Na'vi communicators around their necks. Did I miss a scene, was that explained? I did see early in the film when Dr. Augustine used her necklace to communicate with Jake, but I keep thinking that a one line explanation could've been added, much like when Obi-Wan introduces Luke to the lightsaber. Other unexplained details: What do the people of Earth need Unobtanium for? Exactly how did Neytiri's lame explanation to the other Na'vi to keep Jake alive convince them to do so? Did the Na'vi's notice when Jake would leave his Avatar and go back to his human body? At times, he seemed to be human for a long time, and it was light out, so do the Na'vi sleep during the day and for 14 hours? These are some of the questions that came to me when watching...and unless a film is a book adaption, I don't really enjoy watching a film with that many unanswered questions.
I'm also convinced that seeing 25 minutes of the film at Comic-Con last summer really couldn't have helped. My expectations were pretty high going in, and since I've waited five weeks since it opened, I guess I was sure it had to be Titanic good or else it wouldn't be making Titanic money. Walking out of Comic-Con I told a reporter who had stopped me for a quote about the footage I saw, and I told him that the film was going to change the way we watch movies. After seeing the entire film, I still agree with that statement. I think that Jim Cameron has upped the stakes for the quality of 3D and CGI. Unfortunately, I think that Avatar's success has also solidified our collective forgiveness of mediocre story telling and plot holes.
Jen says we need to go see it again, she is convinced our off center aisle seats, didn't give us the full viewing experience. I'm sure she is right in this case because Avatar is all about the visuals. So I guess my point is- If Avatar is truly a great film, wouldn't the story have made up for the short comings of my seat location?