[QUOTE="stupid4"]
[QUOTE="Baranga"]
I have imagination, because I can fill any blanks myself instead of relying on someone else to do it. I accept that a movie can be a visual spectacle first and a story second. I accept that not any movie *must* have a complicated story.
Unimaginative people don't like anything that's not within their safety zone. I completely embrace the opportunity to witness something that I've never seen before, instead of complaining that it's held together by an archetypal, universal and simple story, dismissing any other qualities and advising people to stay home...
Baranga
1. You shouldn't have to fill in the gaps. That's poor storytelling. That makes the movie bad.
2. I didn't say it had to be a complicated story. But it must not be generic.
3. Avatar is within our safety zone. It has revolutionary visuals, nothing else is new. That's why you like it.
4. I didn't tell people not to see it. I enjoyed it still. Learn to read.
Right, excuse my English. I think it's a bit convulted.
1. I wasn't reffering to plot holes. But to stuff like... one of the mechs pulls out a knife when it loses its gun. I've read some posts on IMDB arguing why does a giant mech carry a knife. Well, the answer is pretty simple - it serves the same purpose as a machete and it's also a good backup weapon. Why is it a knife and not a chainsaw? Because the mech suits of Avatar emulate a human's movements. The operators actually make all the moves of the suit - they hold their hands like they're firing the weapon, they can give orders using the sign language and in one hilarious scene, Quaritch puts his hand on his hips and the mech does the same. It's like Microsoft's Natal crossed with Minority Report (only imagined in 1994).
Another example is how can the blue Na'vi survive and evolve in a green jungle? Well, it takes only a few seconds to figure this out, although nobody in the movie explains it. Same goes for the size of... everything on Pandora. Or to the Cloverfield monster!
2. What's wrong with generic stories? Are myths and fairy tales not generic? Are revenge tales not generic? Avatar's story is generic but has a great advantage over many other non-generic plots: it touches universal themes. It will hold a century from now and it will still be actual, long after people have forgotten about Eastern Promises or Up, for example. Also, remember how Dune was a disaster because it tried to marry the amazing visuals with the awesome plot of the novel?
A story IMO should no be crap. That's it. I'll accept a generic story as long as it's well told and carries the movie - and you've never seen Avatar's story told like this. You can't ignore the execution of the story.
3. The art of summoning emotion through the esthetics of a movie and of visual storytelling has faded in the last decades. Why do you think our own FAU users love Tarsem Singh and Gilliam? Why are Kubrik and Bergman still praised by critics? And why do the same critics embrace Avatar?
Films these days are mostly functional. Filmmakers don't take advantage of film as a visual medium anymore. Avatar completely turns this trend over its head. The visual part is what stimulates our emotions and serves as the primary storytelling device. The most powerful plot moments and characterisations are displayed ONLY visually.
It is NOT a visual experience similar to 2012 and Transformers 2. The visuals are just a show there, nothing more. They're not used as a storytelling device, their main purpose is to look good. Although I must say that 2012 had a couple of really subtle scenes that enhanced the little story it has, and I'm grateful that Emmerich chose the cheesy Irwin Allen path instead of focusing on the horror you glimpse sometimes.
If Avatar is within our safety zone, then I must ask why so many people won't see the movie because of the artistic design only. Why are they hating on the 3D, although it was repeated over and over again it's not the same crap as in My Bloody Valentine or w/e. And why do they not accept that a movie can focus on what a movie really is, a visual experience, and still be as good as a movie that relies on a fantastic story while being fugly? As of now, Avatar is in our safety zone as much as Birth of a Nation is. Chances are if you dig silent movies and classic cartoons (and I LOVE them), then you'll like Avatar despite its flaws.
Now, you may bring up Transformers 2. Unfortunately, apart from technically good CGI and interesting designs, it doesn't have anything else to be praised for visually. That's a movie that fails both visually and story-wise IMO.
Someone brought up Children of Men. Hell yes. Dumb premise, heavy-handed (is that the correct term?) allegories and parallels, good acting and unbelievable visuals. It's a movie mostly remembered for its long takes and the oppressive artistic design. Cuaron is a master of visual storytelling - let's be honest, too little time is spent talking in that movie.
Also, whoever doesn't realise Jake and Neytiri were fully acted shouldn't have the right to criticise the movie. Zoe Saldana was amazing as Neytiri.
4. Well I was actually thinking of BL and some random RT critics here:P
This clears up a lot. Referring to #1, I was never bothered with plot devices such as the Navi being blue. Overall I just felt little to no emotional attachment to the characters, and by the end I stoped caring about them. In fact I never cared about them through the entire movie. That's a bad sign.
Log in to comment