James Cameron's 'Avatar' - The next gen of cinema

[easyrider]

I can to quite some extent agree with this. I loathe it when people come up with complicated reasoning for liking modern art. It's ok to 'just' like it.

On the other hand, if a film makes you reflect on certain issues or on your own life for longer than an hour after you leave the cinema, then it might be regarded as more powerful or meaningful. It that sense, a film can be more than just entertaining.

I'm not saying that Film cannot be Powerful or meaningful.

What I am saying is that films don't have to Powerful or meaningful in order for them to be quality cinema.

 

[my_computer]

what did people think of district 9? I thought it gave a fair amount of spectacle while still being personal and oh wow even a bit political

Gustov, do you think it succeeded in doing both, in ways it would have been nice for avatar to have?

I'm still content with mindless action (Avatar) if it gets it right (for me, it didn't)

 

[Gustov]

I'm not saying that Film cannot be Powerful or meaningful.

What I am saying is that films don't have to Powerful or meaningful in order for it to be quality cinema.

Once again it depends on the audience. Most people will be like you, completely satisfied with a form of escapism.

Others are looking for that powerful message.

Completely depends on how you see film as a medium

 

[Gustov]

what did people think of district 9? I thought it gave a fair amount of spectacle while still being personal and oh wow even a bit political

Gustov, do you think it succeeded in doing both, in ways it would have been nice for avatar to have?

I'm still content with mindless action if it gets it right

I saw District 9 as pure entertainment tbh. Whilst it was political in its own right it was so fictional that none of it was relevant to reality.

The thing I did like about district 9 was that it left a lot of questions unanswered, why was the ship there in the first place? Will the Aliens come back to declare war? It didn't tie everything up in the 3rd act.

I'm not saying I don't enjoy Hollywood films, I really do! It's just they don't stay in my mind for very long, I move on to the next latest 'blockbuster' and get my fix

 

[easyrider]

Once again it depends on the audience. Most people will be like you completely satisfied with a form of escapism.

Others are looking for that powerful message.

Completely depends on how you see film as a medium

Your wide of the Mark,

If I go to see a film...where the main premise is to feel a powerful message and to be challanged then I'm intelligent enough not to expect it from a film like Avatar.

The same notion applies to going to see a horror film,where the main premise is to scared. If I come out and I didn't feel scared then the film failed for me.

People spouting that hidden meaning was lacking from a US Blockbuster SFX pimpfest have totally mised the point.

Film follows certain codes and conventions of the genre it fits into.

Avatar is not a vehicle for deep meaning. Its pure entertainment.

Nothing more,nothing less

 

[Gustov]

Your wide of the Mark,

If I go to see a film...where the main premise is to feel a powerful message and to be challanged then I'm intelligent enough not to expect it from a film like Avatar.

The same notion applies to going to see a horror film,where the main premise is to scared. If I come out and I didn't feel scared then the film failed for me.

People spouting that hidden meaning was lacking from a US Blockbuster SFX pimpfest have totally mised the point.

Film follows certain codes and conventions of the genre it fits into.

Avatar is not a vehicle for deep meaning. Its pure entertainment.

Nothing more,nothing less

I'm not wide of the mark You've just misunderstood me.

I know Avatar is not a 'vehicle' for deep meaning. It's target audience is a family audience. I wouldn't have expected anything more than entertainment.

Horror films are generally catastrophic (over the last decade ) The reason why people enjoy the horror genre is because they know they are safe but get to experience fear at the same time. It's once again, pure entertainment.

For you that's enough, for me it's merely acceptable. If the character development and storyline are good enough, entertainment is a great premise (LOTR) but unfortunately those are usually given a backseat thanks to the priority of entertaining as it's entertainment that brings in the money at the box office.

 

[NeilF]

The floating mountains...

Well its an alien world,so why not?

There really are some dumb ass posts in this thread

The floating mountings were a big big-bear to me when I first saw the trailer - millions of tonnes of rock floating in the air? Where is the logic/science in that?

But then it transpired of course the reason for the corporation being there was to mine the 'unobtainium' which repells mavity (or what ever it is), hence those areas are rich in this mineral so large lumps of it just float...

So, yes, it's far fetched, but within the realms of the story's leap-of-faith...

 

[easyrider]

I'm not wide of the mark You've just misunderstood me.

I know Avatar is not a 'vehicle' for deep meaning. It's target audience is a family audience. I wouldn't have expected anything more than entertainment.

Horror films are generally catastrophic (over the last decade ) The reason why people enjoy the horror genre is because they know they are safe but get to experience fear at the same time. It's once again, pure entertainment.

For you that's enough, for me it's merely acceptable. If the character development and storyline are good enough, entertainment is a great premise (LOTR) but unfortunately those are usually given a backseat thanks to the priority of entertaining as it's entertainment that brings in the money at the box office.

Again you are looking for something that does not exist.

Why do you find a film that is written and produced purely for entertainment and then you watch it...your entertained... but this is just acceptable?

Its done its JOB. Move on

Why does it have to do more than entertain?

A rollercoaster ride is designed, built for one thing to thrill the person who rides it.

It is not built for the beauty of its construction.

My Dog loves me and I love it back. Does he give me insights into life?

No

I just enjoy the experience with him.

Its foolish to stand up and say well if films don't move me or stir my soul then they are just acceptable.

This reeks of film sobbery syndrome and is quite frankly laughable.

BTW MUSE are *****

 

[Gustov]

Again you are looking for something that does not exist.

Why do you find a film that is written and produced purely for entertainment and then you watch it...your entertained... but this is just acceptable?

Its done its JOB. Move on

Why does it have to do more than entertain?

A rollercoaster ride is designed, built for one thing to thrill the person who rides it.

It is not built for the beauty of its construction.

My Dog loves me and I love it back. Does he give me insights into life?

No

I just enjoy the experience with him.

Its foolish to stand up and say well if films don't move me or stir my soul then they are just acceptable.

This reeks of film sobbery syndrome and is quite frankly laughable.

BTW MUSE are *****

I can't be arsed to go any further with this.

Film means more to me than entertainment, simple as.

Go watch Let the Right One In and compare it to Twilight. If you think Twilight was the superior film then there's not much point of us debating.

Film is a form of art (and entertainment), to compare it to a rollercoaster ride is idiotic and quite frankly laughable.

 

[Tummy]

Why is it laughable?

A rollercoaster provides entertainment as do films, and to some people the way a rollercoaster is made / pans out is a form of art, much like film.

 

[easyrider]

I can't be arsed to go any further with this.

Film means more to me than entertainment, simple as.

Go watch Let the Right One In and compare it to Twilight. If you think Twilight was the superior film then there's not much point of us debating.

Film is a form of art (and entertainment), to compare it to a rollercoaster ride is idiotic and quite frankly laughable.

I guess your running out of ideas then.

I have seen Let the Right One In...but I haven't seen Twilight...Whats your point?

Film can be anything.

Calling film a form of art is arrogant. Film can be what it wants to be...

Film can be entertainment and not ART.
Film can be ART and not entertainment.

So architecture is not art?
Buildings are not art?

What if someone built a rollercoaster not for the purpose of riding...But for no purpose at all?

It just was....

Many would find beauty in its construction, some would deem it unacceptable,.some would be confused,some would find it funny,some would just see it for what it is...The actuality of it being..

nothing more nothing less.

Art is found in many things.

Film does not need to be qualified as art...IN fact who can actually say what in fact art is?

 

[Shamikebab]

Gustov you're fighting a losing battle here!

 

[Tummy]

Gustov you're fighting a losing battle here!

Whats new?

 

[Gustov]

I'm not

I'm debating with morons.

There is no right and wrong. Film is what you want it to be, that's what's so special about it.

Auf wiedersehen

 

[Tummy]

I'm not

I'm debating with morons.

Auf wiedersehen

Gustov is saying that film is art because he likes it, Gustov is saying other things can't be compared with film because it's so arty and other such things are not art.

Got it right?

 

[Gustov]

Gustov is saying that film is art because he likes it, Gustov is saying other things can't be compared with film because it's so arty and other such things are not art.

Got it right?

No. It's the debate with regards to entertainment and consumption.

For easyrider consumption is enough and I'm willing to accept that.

For me that's not enough and I've explained why but he can't seem to accept it.

 

[easyrider]

I'm not

I'm debating with morons.

There is no right and wrong. Film is what you want it to be, that's what's so special about it.

Auf wiedersehen

You arguement is flawed..And i just merely highlighted the fact.

I have noticed in the other thread too that when you buckle under the strain of intelligent discourse you get aggresive and call people names

So special as in....

Film is no more special that anything else.

Film just is.

Its that simple

 

[Chimerical]

Gustov is saying that film is art because he likes it, Gustov is saying other things can't be compared with film because it's so arty and other such things are not art.

Got it right?

Well the definition of Art (off Wiki) is "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions".

Buildings have a functional purpose so I wouldn't really call a building 'art' in that sense.

 

[easyrider]

For easyrider consumption is enough and I'm willing to accept that.

For me that's not enough and I've explained why but he can't seem to accept it.

Depends on what I am consuming.

Are you suggesting that I don't get moved by music. Or cry when I watch certain films?

Goosebumps on my arms when I listen to some classical music?

I enjoy moments like this. Does it make these momnets any more valid than diffusing myself in a barrage of CGI?

Nope.

Both have relavence in my life.

I'm just not trying to be a smart ass about it.

 

[Shamikebab]

Well the definition of Art (off Wiki) is "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions".

Buildings have a functional purpose so I wouldn't really call a building 'art' in that sense.

It doesn't say it can't be functional as well.