(no subject)
Time for another entry no one will actually read! \o/
Finally saw Avatar today. I liked it more than I thought I would. Visually, obviously, it was absolutely stunning; the entire thing was absolute eye candy, and I'll admit I actually forgot about my food (we were at Studio Movie Grill) because I was totally entranced by how pretty it was.
I've heard a lot of comparisons of this film to other movies, and my favorite for a description of it is "Pocahontas in FernGully with blue people." The story - while I enjoyed it, certainly - was nothing terribly new or original. No, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, just that it means it wasn't all that clever.
Also, was it just me or was Sam Worthington's American accent awful? I could tell immediately that he wasn't American. I was pretty positive he was either British or Australian. I looked it up after the movie was over - iirc, he's from Surrey. XD
I wish I could find the article I read in Entertainment Weekly a couple of weeks ago on this subject, because the writer said it far better than I could and I agree with every word, but I'll try to summarize.
Basically, what he said was that - yes, Avatar is an incredible accomplishment in the world of CGI filmmaking. The technology involved in bringing Pandora and its inhabitants to life is revolutionary and very impressive. However: part of what the company is claiming is so revolutionary about it is that the motion-capture cameras focused on the actors' faces allow the filmmakers to capture nuances of emotion and movement in said faces in ways regular cameras have never been able to do before.
The argument is essentially this: how do we know? How do we really know what we're seeing? The person behind the computer could be adding or subtracting or editing or enhancing anything, and we'd never know the difference.
In other words - as incredible as this technology is, it will never, ever replace real live actors performing their art themselves.
Anyway, to sort of summarize - to me, pretty much the only thing Avatar achieved above and beyond and of the other awards-buzzy films this year was in terms of its technological advancements, which are not what awards such as "best film" are about. Load all the visual-effects, art direction, etc awards on it you want, Academy - but please, please let films like The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air take the big prizes they so richly deserve.
(Just so you all know, I'm a tad bit obsessed with The Hurt Locker - I thought it was absolutely incredible. One of the best films I've seen in years, by far, and I want to see Kathryn Bigelow and Jeremy Renner in particular be recognized for it. EXPECT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS FROM ME AFTER OSCAR NOMS ARE ANNOUNCED. XD)
Finally saw Avatar today. I liked it more than I thought I would. Visually, obviously, it was absolutely stunning; the entire thing was absolute eye candy, and I'll admit I actually forgot about my food (we were at Studio Movie Grill) because I was totally entranced by how pretty it was.
I've heard a lot of comparisons of this film to other movies, and my favorite for a description of it is "Pocahontas in FernGully with blue people." The story - while I enjoyed it, certainly - was nothing terribly new or original. No, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, just that it means it wasn't all that clever.
Also, was it just me or was Sam Worthington's American accent awful? I could tell immediately that he wasn't American. I was pretty positive he was either British or Australian. I looked it up after the movie was over - iirc, he's from Surrey. XD
I wish I could find the article I read in Entertainment Weekly a couple of weeks ago on this subject, because the writer said it far better than I could and I agree with every word, but I'll try to summarize.
Basically, what he said was that - yes, Avatar is an incredible accomplishment in the world of CGI filmmaking. The technology involved in bringing Pandora and its inhabitants to life is revolutionary and very impressive. However: part of what the company is claiming is so revolutionary about it is that the motion-capture cameras focused on the actors' faces allow the filmmakers to capture nuances of emotion and movement in said faces in ways regular cameras have never been able to do before.
The argument is essentially this: how do we know? How do we really know what we're seeing? The person behind the computer could be adding or subtracting or editing or enhancing anything, and we'd never know the difference.
In other words - as incredible as this technology is, it will never, ever replace real live actors performing their art themselves.
Anyway, to sort of summarize - to me, pretty much the only thing Avatar achieved above and beyond and of the other awards-buzzy films this year was in terms of its technological advancements, which are not what awards such as "best film" are about. Load all the visual-effects, art direction, etc awards on it you want, Academy - but please, please let films like The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air take the big prizes they so richly deserve.
(Just so you all know, I'm a tad bit obsessed with The Hurt Locker - I thought it was absolutely incredible. One of the best films I've seen in years, by far, and I want to see Kathryn Bigelow and Jeremy Renner in particular be recognized for it. EXPECT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS FROM ME AFTER OSCAR NOMS ARE ANNOUNCED. XD)