Yes, people have lost the ability to appreciate a movie as just that, a movie. Just as people can't seem to enjoy art or music anymore without having to psychoanalyze it and or pry it apart until it's down to nothing. For Avatar in particular, people either 1) can't get past James Cameron's name being on it, 2) think the CGI is ridiculous, 3) think the story is just a rehash of what's been done, or 4) are simply opposed to it because they've only seen the previews and decided it was crap from that. At least, that's what I've found around here.
Personally, I think the rest of the world can shove it because I liked the movie, and yes, I admit that I like a lot of things that other people don't (see also music and art). Maybe I'm alone in this boat, but I suppose it could always be worse.
-The 3D made me seasick, which was physically unpleasant -The story was, morally speaking, sufficiently oversimplified that I felt it was insulting my intelligence. Roughly: Humans bad. Cat people good even though they murder civilian contractors.
However, the helecopter gunship things looked a lot like Banshees from Starcraft 2, and I'm really excited about Starcraft 2, so it was nice to see a shiney, high-resolution banshee in 3d. Maybe James Cameron could make a Starcraft movie. That'd be awesome.
So to respond to Allanon's original post, I never had that ability, nor do I want it. "Let it just stand for what it is" is, to me, an appeal to settle for lower quality entertainment. We have so many options today. If we don't demand better, we will not get better. Conversely, if we do demand better, we will. We, as an audience, get exactly what we deserve. Don't you want to deserve something more than a simple, if beautifully rendered story? Why settle for Yugioh when you can have Mononoke Hime?
I'm not saying we should be settling for lower quality entertainment. I would be highly disappointed if people started doing that. I'm asking why can't people accept something on it's own merits and flaws, and instead have to judge it on how it's associated with something else.
I guess that depends on what the association is. If two movies are trying to do the same thing, then a comparison is inevitable. Likewise, a comparison might be drawn between the stories of two similar-plot movies to show similar flaws. "That plot didn't make sense in ___ either." Finally, if too many elements appear to be blatantly lifted from another source, I think it's a fair call to question the legitimacy of a creative work on account of lack of originality. To an extent, every artist steals from every other artist, but sometimes a work becomes too derivative and it gets in the way. (Example: Transformers and Go-bots, I think with Go-bots suffering from the lack of originality, though I could be wrong as I was only 6 at the time.)
I can completely understand the 3D making one ill; but at least for Avatar, the camera was not being tossed around like a hackie sack; see also Cloverfield >>; And yes, the gunship battle was amazing. Mmm, Starcraft movie.
Story simplicity... *shrugs* Doesn't bother me most of the time. Then again, I currently spend one day every week with four children whose ages range from 6 to 11, so, anything on that level of simple is good because it means they can watch it and ask questions about the things they still don't get but feel really cool for watching a "grown-up movie". (the kids are 42 flavours of amazing and cute, but that's a whole set of stories for another time)
But now I'm curious, would you be willing to watch TRON: Legacy in 3D when that hits theaters?
No. I've yet to have a positive experience with movies in 3D, so I will be avoiding them whenever possible.
When I said the story was simple, I didn't mean it was simple in the sense of "easy to understand"-- I meant simple in the sense of bypassing my willing sense of disbelief, thus damaging the immersion that the graphics were working so hard to create.
For Avatar in particular, people either 1) can't get past James Cameron's name being on it, 2) think the CGI is ridiculous, 3) think the story is just a rehash of what's been done, or 4) are simply opposed to it because they've only seen the previews and decided it was crap from that. At least, that's what I've found around here.
Personally, I think the rest of the world can shove it because I liked the movie, and yes, I admit that I like a lot of things that other people don't (see also music and art). Maybe I'm alone in this boat, but I suppose it could always be worse.
Reply
-The 3D made me seasick, which was physically unpleasant
-The story was, morally speaking, sufficiently oversimplified that I felt it was insulting my intelligence. Roughly: Humans bad. Cat people good even though they murder civilian contractors.
However, the helecopter gunship things looked a lot like Banshees from Starcraft 2, and I'm really excited about Starcraft 2, so it was nice to see a shiney, high-resolution banshee in 3d. Maybe James Cameron could make a Starcraft movie. That'd be awesome.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Story simplicity... *shrugs* Doesn't bother me most of the time. Then again, I currently spend one day every week with four children whose ages range from 6 to 11, so, anything on that level of simple is good because it means they can watch it and ask questions about the things they still don't get but feel really cool for watching a "grown-up movie". (the kids are 42 flavours of amazing and cute, but that's a whole set of stories for another time)
But now I'm curious, would you be willing to watch TRON: Legacy in 3D when that hits theaters?
Reply
When I said the story was simple, I didn't mean it was simple in the sense of "easy to understand"-- I meant simple in the sense of bypassing my willing sense of disbelief, thus damaging the immersion that the graphics were working so hard to create.
Reply
Leave a comment