Just saw Avatar

[Gorgon]

do you really think Avatar would have had a leg to stand on without the cutting edge CGI and Cameron's name.

 

That's an odd thing to say as without the cutting edge CGI and Cameron, Avatar wouldn't be Avatar. Would apple pie be as tasty if it didn't have apples and wasn't pie?

 

"Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's good" is a worthless statement as it doesn't tell us anything about the product in question

Product ?. Maybe it is a good product, what do I care. Episode One was a probably a 'good product', it was also a horribly dull movie. If we are talking about a work of art I can't think of a more ever present truism than that popular does not equate with good.

 

If stripped of the polish, which is admittedly very impressive, the rest is just so incredibly banal as to be an almost complete waste of time. The goal was to create a blockbuster, to entertain with the environment of Pandora, that they did, and those kinds of moves are rarely any good. Once in a while you get lucky and find both quality and a giant budget. Doesn't happen often though.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Gorgon

[Pidesco]

Avatar accused of racism

 

I'm a bit tired, but I have to say I follow the logic. Why ARE the technocratic organised chaps always white? Why are the blue fellahs so obviously foreigners? I dunno.

 

Guilt.

[LadyCrimson]

I remember the previews of ID4...nothing like blowing up the US White House to guarantee peaked interest. It didn't do numbers like Avatar/Titanic, but they were very respectable - and no one's gonna say ID4 is "great" movie-making (especially now, years later).

 

They're all popcorn movies anyway...and I don't mean that in a negative way. :D

[Volourn]

"So one week of hype (but hyped really well) in the last week before the movie was released made it currently the second biggest worldwide box office hit of all time"

 

It was hyped before hand as well just minimally. Anmd, yes, Avatar was hyped very well. It focused on its strengths and not its weaknesses. Forexample, if you watcvh the view the trailers no way would you know about its lacklustre story; just the graphics.

 

 

"no one's gonna say ID4 is "great" movie-making (especially now, years later)."

 

Speak for yourself. ID4 is opne of the best action adventure movies ever. Outside of the susperct science (which is irreleavnt to me in science fiction movies), and some other minor annoyances, the movie was awesome.

 

P.S. As for the racism charge, I call balony. It's plain and simple garbage. People who accuse Avatar of racism are retarded and racist themselves.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Volourn

[Asol]

Avatar accused of racism

 

I'm a bit tired, but I have to say I follow the logic. Why ARE the technocratic organised chaps always white? Why are the blue fellahs so obviously foreigners? I dunno.

 

The caucasions were the inferior people in this picture similar to the orcs of LoTRs. Heck there seemed to be pretty blatant digs at the mercenary nature of the US military service and culture. The 'caucasion messiah' transmigrated to 'something better'. The typical status quo race lines seem like a bit of a stretch to apply here.

[Hell Kitty]

and no one's gonna say ID4 is "great" movie-making

 

The only reason to think this is if you assume that everyone follows the same criteria of what makes for great movie-making that you do.

 

If we are talking about a work of art I can't think of a more ever present truism than that popular does not equate with good.

 

Popular does not equal good. Popular does not equal bad. Popular means people like it. This is true whether we are discussing a product or a work of art.

[Hiro Protagonist]

You can see racism in anything if you put some thought to it.

 

Obviously James Cameron is a racist and shows in all his movies/TV Shows. He's racist against the 'black' aliens with the 'white' heroine triumphant in Aliens. In T2, he had a 'black' Miles Dyson who working for Cyberdyne, creates the Terminators and Sarah has to stop him, obviously a white person wouldn't be so evil. In Titanic, we don't see any 'black' people at all because the Titanic or was that James Cameron only let white people on the boat. In Dark Angel, the only black person was a bike courier named 'Herbal Thought' obviously a reference to black people who take drugs.

[Humodour]

They're going to see it multiple times because they like it and it is their PERSONAL opinion it is good. But, this is okay, it is obvious you are just trolling. Typical of you, actually.

 

Did you miss the part where you started this whole exchange by calling me wrong? See, you keep throwing out opinions without backing them up. I've been stating facts about Titanic and Avatar. You are the troll here, you attacked me, and then you got defensive when I questioned your logic, because you are unable to look at any other perspectives. It's the same old thing we've argued about for years now.

 

But hey, I've sent you a few PM's about my concerns over your posting habits. I am here for you if you want to have a real discussion on developing relationships with people on these boards. Until you are willing to open up to someone, you will not really be taken seriously here, you will just be they guy who throws out the same arguments ad nauseam with no regard for others.

 

Hulrshot: 1

Volourn: 0

[Volourn]

You cryin' again? Hurlshot is a stalker who keeps harassing me. He doiesn't seem to get the memo I'm not inetrested in being his friend and that hurts his feelings. Boo hoo. And, your trolling on his behalf on what was a dropped subject doesn't help the issue espciaillym since it's spam.

 

P.S. Avatar is probably a decent movie. Cameron cna't make anything worse than that.

[Humodour]

You cryin' again? Hurlshot is a stalker who keeps harassing me. He doiesn't seem to get the memo I'm not inetrested in being his friend and that hurts his feelings. Boo hoo. And, your trolling on his behalf on what was a dropped subject doesn't help the issue espciaillym since it's spam.

 

P.S. Avatar is probably a decent movie. Cameron cna't make anything worse than that.

 

Rawwwrr!

[LadyCrimson]

and no one's gonna say ID4 is "great" movie-making

 

The only reason to think this is if you assume that everyone follows the same criteria of what makes for great movie-making that you do.

Oh no, I loved ID4 when it came out. I saw it in a packed theater w/a fun, cheering/catcalling audience that heightened the silly-fun aspect and the memory still sticks with me...thus I still like it a fair bit after seeing it several times on TV etc. I wouldn't call it art...but it wasn't trying to be.

 

What I was trying to say is that for me, there's different levels of 'great'. As an entertaining popcorn, theater-experience, sometimes silly sci-fi homage, movie, ID4 is great fun. But that doesn't make it, for me at least, a "great overall" movie. Even Pullman, one of ID4's stars, laughed and said he knew his acting was incidental to the spectacle.

 

I think in terms of 'great action', 'great drama', etc. and then 'just plain great.'

 

And yes, that's my opinion.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Avatar accused of racism

 

I'm a bit tired, but I have to say I follow the logic. Why ARE the technocratic organised chaps always white? Why are the blue fellahs so obviously foreigners? I dunno.

 

I remarked the white messiah thing the moment I left the cinema, but there is one redeeming moment:

 

SPOILER!!!

 

He did integrate his conciousness into the Na'vi body permanently at the end of the movie, so that kinda redeems him from all the racist accusations since he did abandon everything from his previous life, including his race.

 

Now no one can tell he was ever different from them, and that shows some serious commitment on his part.

 

Plus the fact that he led the Na'vi kinda makes sense in the context of the events on screen:

 

1. everything happens in two battles and in a very short time period

2. the Na'vi arent familiar with human war machines > logically in the first battle they get slaughtered

while they could learn in time how to fight the humans, the only one who can give a quick solution is Jake

3. even so, his attempt is unsuccessful , the final battle was lost until the planet itself intervenes

 

Thus I'd say while the white messiah thing was there, it wasnt as bad as previous films, and certainly not enough for such wild accusations.

[Rosbjerg]

I hate it when people resort to the race-card to get attention..

 

Especially: "Robinne Lee, a black actress who appeared opposite Will Smith in the film Seven Pounds, is also among Avatar's detractors.

 

Likening the film to Pocahontas – "the Indian woman leads the white man into the wilderness, and he learns the way of the people and becomes the saviour" – she said: "It's really upsetting in many ways. It would be nice if we could save ourselves.""

 

Ourselves? she's of Jamaican and Chinese descendant.. how can she possibly speak for native americans? .. idiot..

[Gorgon]

^^

I think I'm pretty close to proving my earlier assertion that people are idiots.

[Gorgon]

and no one's gonna say ID4 is "great" movie-making

 

The only reason to think this is if you assume that everyone follows the same criteria of what makes for great movie-making that you do.

 

If we are talking about a work of art I can't think of a more ever present truism than that popular does not equate with good.

 

Popular does not equal good. Popular does not equal bad. Popular means people like it. This is true whether we are discussing a product or a work of art.

A work of art is uncompromising, it doesn't pull punches and is not afraid to follow it's own conclusions. You can't set out to be popular and expect to create anything worthwhile.

[Meshugger]

"White Messiah"-racism.

 

You learn something new everyday.

[Hurlshort]

A work of art is uncompromising, it doesn't pull punches and is not afraid to follow it's own conclusions. You can't set out to be popular and expect to create anything worthwhile.

 

That sounds like crazy talk. Renaissance artists had to produce religious works because the church was paying them, does that mean the Sistine Chapel is not worthwhile?

 

Shakespeare blatantly went for the popularity, adding more sex and violence with each play to try and turn a profit.

 

It really looks to me like you are just trying to say popularity = bad.

[Gorgon]

Neither Shakespeare or Michelangelo had artistic freedom, and neither are good because they got paid by a specific client,more like in spite of it.

[Blarghagh]

do you really think Avatar would have had a leg to stand on without the cutting edge CGI and Cameron's name.

 

That's an odd thing to say as without the cutting edge CGI and Cameron, Avatar wouldn't be Avatar. Would apple pie be as tasty if it didn't have apples and wasn't pie?

 

"Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's good" is a worthless statement as it doesn't tell us anything about the product in question

Product ?. Maybe it is a good product, what do I care. Episode One was a probably a 'good product', it was also a horribly dull movie. If we are talking about a work of art I can't think of a more ever present truism than that popular does not equate with good.

 

If stripped of the polish, which is admittedly very impressive, the rest is just so incredibly banal as to be an almost complete waste of time. The goal was to create a blockbuster, to entertain with the environment of Pandora, that they did, and those kinds of moves are rarely any good. Once in a while you get lucky and find both quality and a giant budget. Doesn't happen often though.

 

I'm sorry, but what? First of all, that original question is a pretty high level of stupid. It's as stupid as someone asking "do you really think American History X would have a leg to stand on without it's characters and ethical investigation?" This film was made for the visuals, and no matter how much you pretend the opposite, making a film for the visuals is completely fine. Film is a visual medium. Just because some films go deep with plot and character, doesn't mean they all have to, and it doesn't mean that films that don't are immediately not 'good' if they don't. And some movies that don't pay enough attention to it can be terrible because of that. It may be not what you look for in a film, but that doesn't mean it's bad. If you don't want a film to focus, at least partially, on the visuals, you're out of luck. Because there are none. The moment the camera turns on, the people making it are concerned with sound and visuals. Don't like it? Tough. Go read a book.

 

Also, who are you to objectively place this in the 'not good' section? Quality is subjective in the first place. I wanted good entertainment, and I got that (three times so far). This movie does for me what I want it to do, and it did it spectacularly, despite me seeing the weaknesses in it's storytelling. How is that not 'good'? I think it's incredible! Also, you're making it sound like this is a Michael Bay film. This is not a film filled with horrible acting, bad pacing, and terrible directing. It is not solely about explosions and people shooting guns at each other. It may not be the best as far as storytelling goes, but where film-making is concerned, this movie does everything right.

 

Besides, for a film not: sequel, prequel, based on a book - graphic novel - true story, I think it did rather okay even on terms of storytelling. It's hardly right to complain about this film's story when nearly everything else out there is a story the filmmakers didn't even come up with. Coming from that, I'd like to repeat my earlier point - a couple of the only other movies that had stories that were thought up by filmmakers, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars, some of the best reviewed films ever that are completely ingrained in our culture, had fairly little to no original storytelling and relied almost entirely on their action sequences, stock characters and special effects. Why was it fine then and deplorable now?

[Gorgon]

I don't agree that a movie can survive on visuals alone and still be called good, I want more to award that label. Also I believe I was first in pointing out that quality is subjective.

 

Film is a visual medium... Who's banging on about the obvious now ?. There has got to be more, there has got to be a compelling story, or you (they) aren't trying hard enough.

 

Also, are you putting Avatar besides the original Star Wars, and Raiders. If that's the case then as the saying goes, well there should be one if there isn't : it's no use arguing with someone who's in love about the object of their affection.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Gorgon

[Blarghagh]

"There has got to be more"? Glad to see your preference is the litmus test on what a film does and does not need.

 

By the way, good job shrugging it off with a "I can't argue with you because your opinion is different than mine".

Edited January 12, 2010 by TrueNeutral

[Gorgon]

And I'm alone in thinking a movie can't work without a story ?. This is pretty basic stuff, I don't know what to say to that.

[Hurlshort]

And I'm alone in thinking a movie can't work without a story ?. This is pretty basic stuff, I don't know what to say to that.

 

I'm pretty sure Avatar had a story.

[Gorgon]

You sure about that, all I saw were a bunch of poorly connected clich

[Blarghagh]

You didn't say it needed a story. You said it needed a compelling story. By which you meant it needed a story that compels to you. Because obviously millions of people going to repeat viewings of Avatar are not compelled by the story but by the special effects they've already seen.

 

Here's another example using Star Wars: The naive farmboy saves the Princess from the Black Knight's fortress. Wow, my mind is blown by this deeply original story. Star Wars became a hit because of it's setting and it's special effects. And that's fine. It was fine then, and it's fine now. Saying it isn't is nothing but arrogance on your part.

Edited January 12, 2010 by TrueNeutral