Storyline
In the year 2227, the gigantic, interstellar space ship Toronto reaches a distant planetary system. The ship's owners, the huge corporation Doimlr-Daihatsu-Thompson, believe that there are rich deposits of raw materials on the third planet of the system, and the Toronto is to mine the whole planet's resources at once. The data that describes the planet as a desert, however, turns out to be false. Albion is a world full of life, secrets, surprises, and magic. When Tom Driscoll, the pilot of the reconnaissance team, discovers this, he swears to save Albion from Toronto's tentacles.
This game I used to play when I was a kid is the same thing as Avatar
:D
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle
It's basically Dances with Wolves.
exactly my thoughts. i was pleasantly surprised by this however, i was expecting a much less subtle allegory to iraq or something and im glad they didnt go that route (too much at least).
astroboy
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm not trolling you. If you think these films aren't smart and have no cerebral content you obviously aren't paying enough attention. The very reason I'm willing to give Avatar a chance is because Cameron makes smart sci-fi. Although given you've just made a claim like "sci-fi doesn't lend itself to thoughtful content" I'd suggest you have a limited understanding of what you're talking about anyway.
I certainly never claimed that sci-fi doesn't lend itself to thoughtful content, nor do I hold that opinion (particularly of scifi literature). When I mentioned "genre" I was being a lot more specific. I wouldn't dare question the intellectual potential of sci-fi on here if only for fear of pkcraistlin tearing me a new one. 2001 A Space Oddyssey for example is a very cerebral film (and novel) imo. A Scanner Darkly, Moon more recently were fairly thoughtfully produced (though again not amazingly profound) films imho. "Blade Runner" was an absolute classic. Even animated stuff like the first Ghost in The Shell film. Believe me I do appreciate the intellectual potential of the sci-fi genre. I thought the first Matrix film had some relatively thoughtful content for s sake.
I was referring more specifically to the "genre" of Hollywood blockbusters that derive all of their entertainment value from scares and thrills and slimy lookin' aliens, explosions, fights with big machines etc. Aliens, Terminator, Predator etc all fall into this category for me. The typical way around this is to say the film relevant film "explores themes".. like say female empowerment, post-modern distrust of technology, anti-corporatism etc etc.. to me this is a bit of a cop-out.
Any number of themes can be written (or indeed read) into the most vapid action script. But at the end of the day something is either a serious in-depth discussion of a particular subject matter or its a visual spectacle largely aimed at the lowest common denominator while trying to appeal a little to a more intelligent audience on the side. Sorry, I appreciate the gesture, but I'm not going to call it an intelligent examination of a theme when it's a cursory glance at best.
SYSTEM-J
You can certainly say these films explore themes: indeed I've read several critical essays on, say, The Terminator that looks at the film in depth on that level. But that is not why I'm calling these films smart.
The reason they're smart, and the reason Cameron and his films generally do not deserved to be lumped in with the assortment of films you're labelling a genre is because they have intelligent and well written storylines. They are character-driven with good character development, they are internally consistent and logically sound. They handle exposition with extraordinary efficiency and precision. These are things your average "foreign film with no CGI or action" often s up on, for all their deep statements on universal themes or the human condition. Such films are so obviously "deep" or "intelligent" that people make the classic first-year-English-essay mistake of assuming a story is only smart if it explores some deeper subtext.
When I watch Terminator 2, one of my favourite aspects of it is how it essentially remakes the original film. There are many, many allusions and references to the original film. But where a genuine dumb "Hollywood blockbuster" like, say, Terminator Salvation would use such references merely as cheap fist-pump fan service money-shots, Terminator 2 is almost constantly subverting, inverting or playing on the original film. Everything reused has a spin put on it in some way that sparks a line of thinking. If he were some Swedish art house film-maker people would throw terms like "meta-fiction" or "intertextual dialogue" at him, but because he's making a loud action-packed film people don't look for these things.
That's one of the reasons I don't give a that Avatar's plot has been done before. Shakespeare ripped all his plots off from old legends. It's about how you use the archetype, and Cameron is a past-master at engaging with a familiar source and doing smart things to it.
Lebezniatnikov
I heard it described as Dances With Wolves meets Ferngully and that just made me lol. :)
astroboy
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You can certainly say these films explore themes: indeed I've read several critical essays on, say, The Terminator that looks at the film in depth on that level. But that is not why I'm calling these films smart.
Again I don't see a cursory glance as "exploration" in any meaningful definition of the term. But I'm glad that is not the basis on which you classify the film as having cerebral content.
quote:
The reason they're smart, and the reason Cameron and his films generally do not deserved to be lumped in with the assortment of films you're labelling a genre is because they have intelligent and well written storylines. They are character-driven with good character development, they are internally consistent and logically sound. They handle exposition with extraordinary efficiency and precision.
The story-lines are internally consistent and well written for what they are, and the characters are well constructed and their actions internally consistent with their past etc.. and sure that takes a lot of work to achieve... It demonstrates true mastery of the medium, which is part of the reason that it is a great film. But that is no guarantee of substance. He hasn't come up with anything in the plot or the characters (expertly constructed as they are) that will make me think about any aspect of my life, or the world, or humanity in a way that is different or new.
His films are much better-executed examples of the action genre. But ultimately they derive all their entertainment value from the action.
quote:
These are things your average "foreign film with no CGI or action" often s up on, for all their deep statements on universal themes or the human condition. Such films are so obviously "deep" or "intelligent" that people make the classic first-year-English-essay mistake of assuming a story is only smart if it explores some deeper subtext.
Nothing I could disagree with there. Firstly to me American films are just as "foreign" as Canadian, English or Russian ones. And honestly I'm no mindless worshipper of all things foreign or European, an infantile French comedy is just as brainless as a crappy Hollywood comedy or a crappy Aussie comedy. And I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the use of cgi or other special effects automatically negates ideas contained in the story or the film in general... it's just that sometimes with CGI you can create a film that is so stunning aesthetically that it has value even without conveying any original ideas. And there is nothing wrong with that.
quote:
When I watch Terminator 2, one of my favourite aspects of it is how it essentially remakes the original film. There are many, many allusions and references to the original film. But where a genuine dumb "Hollywood blockbuster" like, say, Terminator Salvation would use such references merely as cheap fist-pump fan service money-shots, Terminator 2 is almost constantly subverting, inverting or playing on the original film. Everything reused has a spin put on it in some way that sparks a line of thinking. If he were some Swedish art house film-maker people would throw terms like "meta-fiction" or "intertextual dialogue" at him, but because he's making a loud action-packed film people don't look for these things.
I do look for these things and they make T2 one of the best executed action films ever (and Salvation utter garbage) but I don't think that automatically makes it a thought provoking film. Being well executed doesn't make it intellectually stimulating.
quote:
That's one of the reasons I don't give a that Avatar's plot has been done before. Shakespeare ripped all his plots off from old legends. It's about how you use the archetype, and Cameron is a past-master at engaging with a familiar source and doing smart things to it.
I agree with you to a degree. I think Shakespeare takes the basic skeleton of a fairytale and turns it into a character-driven exploration of the human condition, in which storyline is secondary and overcomes the lack of originality that way. While Avatar makes me hesitant to wince at the cheesiest moments for fear that I might miss another stunning visual. That doesn't make one superior to the other, just makes one more cerebral and the other much more visually stunning.
It's kind of like pastoral poetry. Some people can go on and on about the mastery of the form and the intricacy of the allusions and the clever use of meter. And I can blow my load over masterful use of the medium as much as anyone else, but that is form not substance.. at the end of the day the guy's written a poem about his garden... He did it in a wonderfully pretty way sure.. I couldn't have done it nearly that well but he gave me no substance for my brain to munch on. That doesn't make it any less of an achievement, it is still a good poem in it's own way.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by astroboy
The story-lines are internally consistent and well written for what they are, and the characters are well constructed and their actions internally consistent with their past etc.. and sure that takes a lot of work to achieve... It demonstrates true mastery of the medium, which is part of the reason that it is a great film. But that is no guarantee of substance. He hasn't come up with anything in the plot or the characters (expertly constructed as they are) that will make me think about any aspect of my life, or the world, or humanity in a way that is different or new.
His films are much better-executed examples of the action genre. But ultimately they derive all their entertainment value from the action...
I do look for these things and they make T2 one of the best executed action films ever (and Salvation utter garbage) but I don't think that automatically makes it a thought provoking film. Being well executed doesn't make it intellectually stimulating.
Again, substance does not necessarily mean "think about my life/world/human condition". It takes genuine intelligence to tell a good story and develop three dimensional and human characters. I derive as much entertainment in Terminator 2 from the developing relationship between John Connor and the terminator as I do from the car chases. The end of that film packs ridiculous emotional punch: Cameron makes people cry over the demise of a killing machine that is being played by Arnie. One of the most entertaining things about Aliens is watching the psychological unravelling of the marines, particularly Hudson who is played to absolute perfection by Bill Paxton. I strongly prefer the cinematic cut with less action over the Director's Cut because I dislike the changes to the story and certain characters.
I think it's utterly self-contradictory to agree that the films have great stories and characters told with mastery of the form and then to say we enjoy them for the action. If there's no enjoyment from plot or characterisation why don't we just watch Alien Versus Predator or Terminator Salvation? They're packed to the gills with action scenes, but they suck beyond belief.
I'll also deal with the second paragraph here because it's the same territory: what T2's story does with the first film is again not thought-provoking in the English-essay "human condition" way, but it's thought provoking in of itself because of the intelligent way it plays off the original film. When the film ended, I spent a lot of time thinking about the plays on the original plot, went through the film trying to think of more, smiled in recognition of what Cameron did, how he twisted certain characters, the irony he created. As I said, you can throw any number of big critical terms at the techniques he uses, and they are thought-provoking.
quote:
Nothing I could disagree with there. Firstly to me American films are just as "foreign" as Canadian, English or Russian ones. And honestly I'm no mindless worshipper of all things foreign or European, an infantile French comedy is just as brainless as a crappy Hollywood comedy or a crappy Aussie comedy. And I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the use of cgi or other special effects automatically negates ideas contained in the story or the film in general...
I'm just going on what you said in this thread:
"If I want to think or be moved I'll watch foreign cinema with little to no CGI or action."
Basically, this debate comes down to underlying philosophy of what makes good art. You seem to have the idea that deep or meaningful art should reflect the real world or human condition in some way, which is essentially an extension of that old Victorian idea that art should serve as moral edification. I'm much more of the opinion that any form of art can be deep and sophisticated simply by being done very well and by achieving a strong emotional effect. I find beauty and depth simply in a well-told story, I enjoy the nuance and sophistication of a good plot executed to perfection. That's not to say I don't enjoy films that deal with the human condition, with real life and so on, I've just seen too many ultra-philosophical yet tily made art house films to believe they're any smarter than a Cameron film.
Sand Leaper
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Nacht
Storyline
In the year 2227, the gigantic, interstellar space ship Toronto reaches a distant planetary system. The ship's owners, the huge corporation Doimlr-Daihatsu-Thompson, believe that there are rich deposits of raw materials on the third planet of the system, and the Toronto is to mine the whole planet's resources at once. The data that describes the planet as a desert, however, turns out to be false. Albion is a world full of life, secrets, surprises, and magic. When Tom Driscoll, the pilot of the reconnaissance team, discovers this, he swears to save Albion from Toronto's tentacles.
This game I used to play when I was a kid is the same thing as Avatar
:D
Oh man, I thought I was the only one who loved this. Such an immersive and colourful game, if only somewhat RPG-ish politically correct. It was also pretty damn difficult from what I can remember.
Halcyon+On+On
This thread absolutely reeks of a gentle and cleansing spring shower.
Fledz
I don't get what people have against CGI. District 9 had a lot of CGI and we all know how good that movie was.
Halcyon+On+On
Elaborate puppets/makeup/costumes will should always be preferable to CGI because we needn't fool ourselves into thinking they merely look real - we know that they are.
Animatronics is an art. Digital animation [generally] takes considerably less team coordination - and subsequently, cost; this is not to imply it's less of an art or takes less talent to produce, but it certainly loses its charm when you just sort of let the computer render/animate/approximate things for you. I love both, but puppets and "real" special effects have an absolutely essential and distinct charm to them.
Fledz
The "CGI is easy to do" argument is as retarded as the "EDM is easy to produce" argument. You can't be that dense.
