Oxigen_Waste Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Yeah I was gonna say, sometimes people analyse and look into ilms way too much, instead of just sitting back and enjoying them! Because you see them as entertainment designed for your comsumption. But their supposed to be manifestos of a certain will/idea. Avatar isn't one of those, of course. Analysing makes a good film better and a bad film worst. Just because you don't like cinema you can't criticize the ones who do. True, but that's not reason not to appreciate it now. It's like anything, there will always be better along the line. But that's like saying a new world record is shit because it will be beaten eventually. Doesn't make the current achievement any less impressive. When you look at Citizen Kane, which changed the world of cinema 70 years ago and still to this day stands tall as the brightest one of them all and remains completely unparallaled... yeah, I'd say it makes this particular achievement completely unimpressive.
Eenuh Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Avatar is a good popcorn flick but really nothing more than that. It looks nice, but the visuals aren't even that impressive as some people make it out to be.
Oxigen_Waste Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Such as the Cubes who are still unsure because everyone is telling them that it HAS to be seen in 3D and 3D has never worked for them before, possibly because of a wonky eye or something. I'm on your team about the 3D. It's a gimmick and it doesn't really add anything to movies. Plus, those damned glasses make movies darker! On Avatar specifically, it's ok, but I'd have prefered to have seen it in 2D.
Ashley Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 3D, when done correctly, adds depth which can be great.
Oxigen_Waste Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 3D, when done correctly, adds depth which can be great. But is ultimately completely unnecessary and irrelevant.
Paj! Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Hmm. I think I'm very forgiving of it, perhaps because I just plain liked it. I liked the visuals, the story was familar and very Titanic and crowd-pleasing or whatever the correct term would be. Traditional, with moving bits, action etc. If I wasn't interested in it or he visuals weren't so appealing to me, I think I'd be more critical. I know it wasn't great, I think a 6/10 is probably right for it as a film, but I loved the visuals which raise it for me.
Oxigen_Waste Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I "liked" it too. But cinematically speaking? It's a non-event.
ReZourceman Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 cinematically speaking What do you mean? Well rather, I think I know what you're saying but.... Ah whats the point. :p
Ashley Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 But is ultimately completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Cinema is contemporary art. The Mona Lisa wouldn't be so loved if it didn't have depth.
Daft Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 True, but that's not reason not to appreciate it now. It's like anything, there will always be better along the line. But that's like saying a new world record is shit because it will be beaten eventually. Doesn't make the current achievement any less impressive. That said, Avatar was a good film but not amazing. IMO etc. Yeah, I wasn't thinking that while watching it. I'm just saying, take the currently amazing visuals away and you have an even poorer film - ie, the basics are shoddy. Like you, I thought it was good, not amazing.
SPAMBOT4000 Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Yeah, I wasn't thinking that while watching it. I'm just saying, take the currently amazing visuals away and you have an even poorer film - ie, the basics are shoddy. Totally agree with that. The basic plot and everything is pretty shite and it probably wouldn't be much without the visuals. However, I also think it's the visual style rather than the visual effects that people are creaming themselves over. Although I can see its faults and although I realise it is probably going to be irrelevant in a decade, I can't help deny that I loved every single moment of it. Some films aren't meant to be analysed and picked apart, some are just meant to be enjoyed and then put away.
Daft Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 In regards to the style, it just reminded me of these two videos. Make everything big and put weird lights on them.
Raining_again Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I'm hoping 3d doesn't take off and become a big success.. I've got no depth perception so I can't really enjoy it!
nightwolf Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I enjoy 3D, why? Because its pretty and shiny I don't particularly mind paying an extra quid to have monsters leap out infront of me. I hope one day it'll happen with games. But alas..
Eenuh Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I'm the opposite. I didn't find the 3D stuff all that. Maybe it just doesn't work that well for me or something, what with my crappy eyes, but I didn't find it worth the extra money (paying more than 10 euro for a film is a bit much for me). Plus the stupid glasses hurt my nose so much I had to keep holding it up. So yeah, I could happily go without the 3D stuff. Hope it doesn't become standard.
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I did enjoy Avatar in 3D, but I wouldn't want to watch every film in that way. Not at the moment anyway, because I don't like wearing the glasses. It's a barrier between yourself and the film. But, if they can accomplish 3D without the need for glasses, I'd like to see what that would be like. As for the plot of Avatar. Yeah, it wasn't extremely original. It's pretty much identical to the story of The Last Samurai, which I loved. But, it worked for me. Whilst it wasn't original, I didn't think it was a terrible story at all. The story isn't the focal point of the film anyway, it's mainly about the Na'vi, and Jake's interaction with them. Gradually throughout the film, you see less and less of the humans until the final battle.
Daft Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I enjoy 3D, why? Because its pretty and shiny I don't particularly mind paying an extra quid to have monsters leap out infront of me. I hope one day it'll happen with games. But alas.. Playing Gran Turismo 5 At CES... In 3D!!!
Cube Posted January 9, 2010 Posted January 9, 2010 I'm on your team about the 3D. It's a gimmick and it doesn't really add anything to movies. Plus, those damned glasses make movies darker! It's more that it simply hasn't worked for me in the past. It just makes the screen very blurry.
chairdriver Posted January 9, 2010 Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) But is ultimately completely unnecessary and irrelevant. But 3-D adds something. In the same way that colour is unnecessary (Cinema survived without it for however many years), but adds something. And in the same way that most stuff in good music is unnecessary, but adds so much. Like Bon Iver's use of the vocoder in Woods [/love that song too much], and the poignant one pluck of the harp half-way through Joanna Newsom's Emily. Still, considering films which have no saving grace are given 6, it feels a bit flawed to give Avatar the same score (unless you're basing it alone on story - but that's also flawed, because quite a few absolutely shit films are based on good stories). Daft, your comments about stuff not being explained holds no ground. At all. Watch 2001, one of the most celebrated sci-fis of all time, and nothing at all is explained. What the fuck is the LG chocolate slab doing there? And it's pretty easy to explain the floating mountains - they're made of rock less dense than the atmosphere (which we know isn't the same as Earth's atmosphere). They've already introduced unobtainium (who the fuck made up that name...), so why is it so hard to suspend disbelief and accept a compound less dense than the atmosphere... Edited January 9, 2010 by chairdriver
gaggle64 Posted January 9, 2010 Posted January 9, 2010 My biggest gripe about 3D is the way it's obviously going to became the idiots last defense for shite movie making, as HD was. eg: "Have you seen Transformers 2/3?" "Yes. It was so awful I left before I shit myself to death." "Did you see it in HD/3D?" "No." "Well obviously you haven't REALLY seen it until you've seen it in HD/3D. It's amazing!" And then I'm forced to kill them.
chairdriver Posted January 9, 2010 Posted January 9, 2010 But it's like listening to an album with only one earphone in. You're not experiencing it as how it was created to be experienced. But yeah, ultimately, a shit film is a shit film. I wouldn't call Avatar shit. It's "meh" at worst. ------- I'm just waiting for a good director to make use of 3-D well.
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 9, 2010 Posted January 9, 2010 But 3-D adds something. In the same way that colour is unnecessary (Cinema survived without it for however many years), but adds something. And in the same way that most stuff in good music is unnecessary, but adds so much. Like Bon Iver's use of the vocoder in Woods [/love that song too much], and the poignant one pluck of the harp half-way through Joanna Newsom's Emily. Still, considering films which have no saving grace are given 6, it feels a bit flawed to give Avatar the same score (unless you're basing it alone on story - but that's also flawed, because quite a few absolutely shit films are based on good stories). Daft, your comments about stuff not being explained holds no ground. At all. Watch 2001, one of the most celebrated sci-fis of all time, and nothing at all is explained. What the fuck is the LG chocolate slab doing there? And it's pretty easy to explain the floating mountains - they're made of rock less dense than the atmosphere (which we know isn't the same as Earth's atmosphere). They've already introduced unobtainium (who the fuck made up that name...), so why is it so hard to suspend disbelief and accept a compound less dense than the atmosphere... Great post, man. Also, props for mentioning 2001, I love it. Although, the book differs from the film, in that more is explained in it there. Kubrick really held back quite a few things when he made the film, because he thought it would add a more mysterious element to the film. Which it does. Take that last scene for example. That scene left me scratching my head when I saw it. But, when I did some research into it, I found out that the book goes explain the purpose of it. So, I'm now trying to get the book! I think something like the last 20 mins of that film feature no dialogue. It's definitely a trip, and I love it. A favourite of mine.
gaggle64 Posted January 9, 2010 Posted January 9, 2010 The first "good" 3D movie will be just as good in 2D. Or in black in white on a six inch screen. I'll bet you my house and both my testicles.
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 9, 2010 Posted January 9, 2010 The first "good" 3D movie will be just as good in 2D. Or in black in white on a six inch screen. I'll bet you my house and both my testicles. Yeah, well I bet that you're homeless and female.
Wesley Posted January 9, 2010 Posted January 9, 2010 But it's like listening to an album with only one earphone in. You're not experiencing it as how it was created to be experienced. That's rubbish. With only one earphone you'd obviously have other noises, etc. With non-3D it's not like you have random things messed up/missing/coming into the scene. The fact is that great movies have been created for a very long time without this technology. This new technology doesn't mean that that movies will finally be "good", or even mean that average films are now great. It's just something else in the artists toolset, which - if used right - can help make that experience better.
Recommended Posts