Thank you.
So we’re down to “Nuh-uh” and “Yes huh.” This isn’t an argument, just a refutation.
Dang edit window.
I’ve also never said movies can’t be used to tell stories. They can, and they can tell very good ones, sometimes stories that would actually lack for being on paper. It’s just not necessary that a movie have a good story to be entertaining (or interesting, or good, or any of the words I’ve used that don’t mean bad). Movies are for entertainment, first and foremost. If they entertain, whether it be through dialogue, plot twists, acting quality, fight scenes, car chases, CGI, or even just explosions, they’ve done their job.
I agree.
Any media (movies, music, books, magazines) I consume in my recreational time is for my entertainment. Sometimes I’m in the mood for a good story, so I seek out works that have that. Sometimes I’m in a the mood for a thrill, so I find works that are that. Sometimes I want to expand my horizons, so I get works that do that.
There are good works in each category. I judge a work by how well it does for me what it intends to do. I don’t criticize a “story” work for not educating me; that wasn’t its purpose. And I don’t criticize a “thrill” work for lacking a strong story.
Part of the problem with evaluating Avatar is the amount of hype associated with it. If I hadn’t been sold that it was a media-changing, deeply ecologicaly spiritual event, I probably could have enjoyed it more as I enjoy any mindless summer blockbuster. When I was in the theatre and realized the special effects were like a video game on a grand scale and the plot was “Dancing with Smurfs” I felt unfairly annoyed.
Pretty much this. People lambasting the dramatic failings of a film that took film making to a new level technologically and experientially sort of misses the point. It’s pure visual entertainment and immerses you in a wholly virtual world where the dividing line between a spectacular visual fantasy and “reality” is blended to an unprecedented degree. I got my money’s worth.
Hmmmmm.
Nice catch.
Oh, come on! Lots of perfectly good, even great, literature, theater and film features melodramatic plots with black-and-white morality! It’s a perfectly valid artistic choice! A great story does not have to be about difficult moral choices! Look at the original Star Wars trilogy (not the prequel trilogy) – what was there even to suggest for consideration the notion that Darth Vader might have done the Right Thing by going over to the Dark Side, or that the Empire had some value and might be worth defending?
There were things I found unsatisfying about Avatar: In moral terms, it might have been a better story if we had seen Jake Sully wrestling with his conscience, even considering the problem at that in defending the alien race he might be betraying his own native race and that is Wrong.
More difficult, however, are the hard-SF objections: The existence of unobtanium is some particuarly egregious blackboxing, and they never answer the question of why a mineral which is repelled rather than attracted by gravity is on a planet’s surface at all rather than floating out in space. But worse is this: On Pandora, all the vertebrate-analogues are born with the biological equivalent of USB ports, with which they can interface their own nervous systems with those of others – not only of their own species, but of other vertebrate-analogue species. What evolutionary process could produce that?! If there’s something different about Pandora’s environment that substitutes cooperation for competition as a driving force in evolution, that should have been explored. Instead it was just glossed over, and we were presented with this New Agey equivalent of the Gaia Hypothesis, which doesn’t really hold true on Earth so why should it elsewhere?
All fair criticism, except that it really was a media-changing event: The special effects set a new technical standard against which future SF/fantasy films will be measured.
Good points all, except for the part about unobtanium. It wasn’t on the surface but under it. It had to be dug out. And remember, the largest deposit of unobtanium on Pandora was buried deeply underneath the gigantic Tree of Souls. (And if the organic inter-species USB device bugs you, how about a tree from which you can hear your ancestors’ voices?)
Obviously, there are certain times when watching or reading science-fiction that you simply have to suspend disbelief. I think Cameron did an almost unbelievably good job with that movie, and in a dozen different but equally incredible ways. If I had more time and the Oscars weren’t receding in people’s minds by now anyway, I might compose an OP going into it all. I don’t know how I could think more highly of him as a film-maker.
It wasn’t cavorite, it was just levitating. Why do maglev trains not head for low earth orbit?
I believe that we’ll see the why of that in later movies, but suffice to say - I don’t believe Cameron intends us to think they just evolved that way. Pandoran ecology looks designed because it is designed (and I don’t just mean by Cameron and his team, I mean in-story)
Because it’s the story the Na’vi tell themselves, doesn’t make it any more true than the myths humans tell.
Incorrect. At least, this should be stated as Bosstone’s personal preference, and not as a statement about movies in general.
You can certainly say that that’s largely how movies are consumed, but you can’t state this as a rule for *why *they’re created. An artist who chooses to work in the medium of moving images has absolutely zero obligation to entertain you. Zero.
Of course, you have zero obligation to *watch *a film that doesn’t entertain you, but that’s a separate matter.
That’s not a rule, but obviously a personal opinion. You can tell, because* it’s stating an opinion.* Or do you think that whether a movie is good or bad can be objective fact? And even though it’s a strongly held opinion, I have no doubt that there are exceptions.
If that’s so, then what’s the point of this thread?
Honestly, I realize that most declarative statements in Cafe Society can be modified by mentally appending “in my opinion” to the end, but I really wish people would understand the difference between “X was a bad movie” and “I did not like X.” “X was a bad movie because it didn’t have Y” implies that a movie cannot objectively be any good unless it has Y, and that’s just not true except for very, very limited values of Y. At the very least, it’s only true for that one person’s preference, in which case it’d be so much more honest and less confusing to say “I did not like X because it didn’t have Y.”
You know? Fine, you (general you) didn’t like Avatar because it had a crap story. I liked it because it was one of the prettiest things I’ve ever seen in a movie theater. Therefore, Avatar was a good movie.
But once you get down to arguing opinions, there’s nowhere for the thread to legitimately go. Arguing over whether or not a movie must have a story to be objectively worthwhile is much more interesting.
I was thinking of the way planets are formed, by gravitational accretion of the matter around a new star. The gravity-repellent unobtanium would not be drawn in by the proto-planet’s gravity. (Of course, perhaps it could be formed by some geological process after planetary formation.)
Can you make a movie without a story? Sure.
Can it be beautiful and engrossing? Sure. IMAX used to do it all the time. To Fly, Speed, The Living Sea, The Dream is Alive, Blue Planet, etc.
The thing is with eye-candy movies none of them ran much longer than 40-60 minutes. Why? Because no matter how beautiful and interesting they are, without a story you’re going to get bored. It was like the Olympics closing ceremonies. “Wow, this is pretty cool and amazing!” (3 hours larer) “Oh my god, is this thing ever going to end?” (click)
It’s kind of Like Disney’s Fantasia. Everyone thinks it’s cool but do you know anybody that can finish watching it without falling asleep?
I saw no hint whatsoever of a sequel. Has Cameron talked about one?
From Cameron’s interview in* Entertainment Weekly*:
I probably could’ve stated it more equivocally, but I always just take that for granted. If it’s a matter of opinion, then it’s not a statement of fact.
Anyway, even the most gorgeous special effects extravaganzas can be–and have been–undone be a lame plot. That’s pretty much become Michael Bay’s trademark. Not to mention both of Costner’s postapocalyptic forays.
The sole exceptions, that I’m personally aware of, are Dune and Speed Racer, but that’s because I get the sense that in both cases the director was perfectly aware that the plot was merely a device for stringing imagery on. Somehow that director awareness makes it OK for me. But when I get a sense that director is insulting me by presuming that I’ll swallow a lame plot just because he says I should–like say 90% of Spielberg and Shamalot’s output–that’s when it rankles.
And of course there are experimental films, or other approaches outside of the mainstream 3-act hero/conflict/romance formula, that successfully eschew plot. But these films are far and away the rare exceptions. Film is, for the most part, a storytelling medium, and almost without exception, if the story’s lacking the film is lacking.
Well, okay. If you think Speed Racer worked, then I think we can find common ground. 