Jump to content


Free Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Crainy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yep, thats about the reply I expected from you. If you cant be bothered to think about something, stop talking about it.
  2. Im not saying they are wrong to change their opinion. Im saying they are wrong because they are wrong. And so are you. First of all, you assume that I like Avatar just because of the setting/themes/presentation. You also insinuate that Ive not seen alot of movies. I love movies as art and understanding movies as an art form is one of the most central aspects of my life. I finished my first full-length animated film when I was 20. I used to make a large part of my income from work related to movies or using skills Ive acquired while making movies. That gives me a much better understanding of movies as art and makes me more qualified to talk about the topic than casual movie goers. Just like someone that creates software for a living is more qualified to talk about the nuances of programming and what makes good software compared to the layman. Yes, everyone can like what they want. What movies you like and dislike is subjective. But what a movie is and how it is crafted is for the largest part objective. Art and movies, like most things in the world, are not as subjective as people assume, infact what goes into art is often times quite objective. When a movie deals with certain themes or achieves certain qualities, that is objective. If you are then entertained by that is subjective, but either way it does not give a viewer the right to dismiss the objective qualities a film has. First of all, Avatars story is not conventional nor traditional. You say people like Avatar for the "setting/themes/presentation", but not for the story. That doesnt make any sense, because "setting/themes/presentation" ARE story. Every element in a well crafted movie should come together to tell its story. Plot is just another tool a filmmaker can use to tell a great story. So are characters. Not every movie needs incredible CGI animation or sound design to tell a great story. In the same way, not every movie needs an intricate plot or super original characters to tell a great story. Infact, most of the time, if a filmmaker uses elements like cinematography, music, acting and directing to its fullest to tell his vision (his story), the end result is often times more artistically worthwhile and expressive than movies from filmmakers who are not as good at using all the tools they have at their disposal. There are many incredible films that focus exactly on the things that make movies unique as an art form (cinematography, music, directing, acting, among others) and not the plot itself to tell the largest part of their story. And often times this results in movies that are far better at conveying what they strive towards. However, it also comes with the "downside" that movies like this are far harder to understand and read for the layman. Because in order to understand a movie that conveys its themes and its intellectual complexity through the tools Ive mentioned previously, it requires the viewer to not only pay much more attention to these elements and also see the movie in the right technical setup, like a cinema (Afterall, watching a movie that heavily depends on great cinematography or sound design to convey its thematic complexity on a bad monitor with crappy headphones is like reading a book with half the pages missing), but it also requires the viewer to have the affinity and perhaps even knowledge to properly interpret these elements. And many casual movie goers do not. They cannot understand these movies and they dont even know it. Thats what I call artistic challenge. To give you a very basic example: A movie can tell most of its story through its cinematography, which will require the viewer to pay ALOT of attention to the cinematography in order for the viewer to understand the movie. Just like if a movie has a complex plot, the viewer has to pay alot of attention to the plot to understand it. Both movies would have the same amout of intellectual worth and complexity, just conveyed in different ways. If the viewer then fails to understand the plot because he didnt pay enough attention, then thats a failing of the viewer, making his opinion quite worthless when it comes to critizing the movie. Likewise, if the viewer didnt pay enough attention to the visuals in a movie that relies heavily on cinematography and then doesnt understand that movie, again, thats the fault of the viewer, not the movie. A movie like Avatar is challenging on an artistic level. And many viewers are not capable of properly understanding movies that are challening on an artistic level, because they simply dont know what to look for. They dont understand the story of Avatar because they are not capable of reading elements like the movies artistic directing. And if you dont understand a movie, your opinion on it is wrong, no matter if you subjectively enjoyed the movie or not. And thats fine, I do not have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people like you that go around making a statement like "If you dig AVATAR (and I do), it's because the setting/themes/presentation trump the very traditional, conventional story." without understanding that there are people who do care and know much more about movies than yourself (judging you just from this one post you made, I dont actually know you in real-life so I cannot say what you are capable of) and who, quite frankly, are better at understanding the movie than you are. Keep the typos, I wrote this in a hurry.
  3. Consider that Avatar is a much more thematically complex film than you are able to discern on a first viewing and that you are not a god of media literacy that is able to immediately understand the many thematic elements that James Cameron put into his masterpiece. That you follow the trend of saying the movie is just like Dance with the Wolves or Pocahontas very clearly tells me how shallow your opinion is. Its one of these things that people say because they sound clever but arent actually clever. The movie deals with various different themes and once you understand the more nuanced writing in the movie, you will come to realize that Avatar only resembles movies like Pocahontas on a very superficial level. They do not have the same thematic core at all. If you arent willing to put the time into properly understanding a piece of art before finalizing your opinion on it, thats your own business. But if you do that, like with all things in life, you have to accept that your opinion is automatically worth less than the people that do look at art more closely. Im not trying to attack you, but asking you to extend your perspective abit. On another note: Unfortunately you will never be able to experience it, but when it comes to grandness and movies as a spectacle, there probably never was a movie in the history of film that benefited more from seeing it in the cinema than Avatar. The way the movie managed to immediately pull the audience in, from the very first second and immerse them throughout the entire experience was unprecedented. It felt less like a movie and more like you just went on an awe-inspiring road trip, Ive never experienced a movie that evoked such an atmosphere, neither before nor since. When you walked out of the cinema, it felt like you were away "somewhere", not that you just watched a movie.
  4. No Im not, Im not married to Avatar. But you cant deny that a statement like in your post I initially responded to is devoid of any valuable thought.
  5. If thats the statement you are gonna make after watching a movie like Avatar, your opinion isnt even worth considering.
  6. I get that what you wrote is an opinion that gets shoved down peoples throats at every corner of the internet and that people feel clever when saying it (which is more important to alot of people than ACTUALLY thinking), but the "George Lucas" syndrome doesnt really apply here. Rowling is a book author, not a filmmaker. For the most part she always had complete control over her franchise, especially after the first few books were a success. And most definitely when the movies were getting made. The reason that this entry in the Potter Universe presumably isnt that big of a success has other reasons.
  7. Just watched the trailer. Good god, like in the last film, the cinematography is an incredible achievement. So incredibly expressive and with a clear vision. If the entire movie keeps up that level of visual storytelling, like the last film, that alone will give this movie more substance than most of its competitors. That is something that alot of people, especially people that are only interested in movies on a very casual level, dont understand about this medium. Great visuals arent style over substance. Style IS substance. Cinematography, just like every element that makes movies what they are, can be an incredible tool to tell the story and convey the themes that the movie strives towards - and often times do so much more profound than just through dialogue or writing. Visuals can inform us on both a very basic and intellectual level about the context of a given scene. A picture says more than a thousand words. A movie says more than a thousand pictures. But I digress. The cast also all seem to be on the A level again. With cinematography like that (and hopefully great overall directing to match it) and such a great cast, like its predecessor, this movie has the potential to be one of the best films in recent memory if the movie improves on the writing of the first film with a tighter script. Either way, its gonna be a treat.
  8. Oh god. They made the Sonic memes into a movie. I wish Paramount all the best.
  9. Not true. Marvel movies prove that you can even take away the "great visuals" from a movie that appeals to the lowest common denominator and still make alot of money. The amout of money movies make is not about quality most of the time, especially in todays age. Its about a marketing campaign that is able to trick people into liking the film and convince them that watching it in the cinema is something that belongs in their lifestyle. Thats very hard to do with a unique and unknown property like Mortal Engines. As for why Peter Jackson bough it: Because the guy follows his vision and was obviously interested in making this movie happening on the big screen. Directors like Peter Jackson are artists, and for most artists money is a secondary concern (but still an important one).
  10. Jesus, from that glimpse, that sonic design looks absolutely horrific. Surely it cant be that bad when fully revealed.
  11. The Avengers 4 trailer is cool, but it just reminded me again how Infinity War changed my perspective on the MCU. Ive never been a fan of the MCU. I dont care about comic books, or super heroes, nor do I look for movies that complete a certain part of my lifestyle. I care about great movies. I love movies and I think movies as art is one of the biggest accomplishments of humankind. I never cared about the MCU because most of them simply arent good movies. Are they good comic book adapations? Maybe, I dont know. They might even be a good way to pass the time or as an activity on a date. But as movies, as art? Most of them definitely arent good at beeing that. And thats no secret, anyone whos a filmmaker or just is heavily educated in movies knows that Marvel movies are this way intentionally. They are the fast food of the movie industry and thats a pretty big accomplishment in itself. However, Infinity War showed me that it didnt have to be this way. Infinity War showed me just how much of a cinematic failure and huge missed opportunity the MCU as a whole really is. And that its a shame that these Marvel movies dont strive to be anything more than fast food. The MCU had the opportunity to create something remarkable, never before in the history of film did we have such a coherent, long-running series of films committed to telling a greater story arc. And the first part of the finale to this epic, Infinity War, was a good movie. But thats just it, it was good. Nothing more. The "snap" in Infinity War could have been a movie moment like no other, it should have shaken the audience in their seats. Over a decade of films, with the same lovable characters, all leading up to this. It should have been a generation defining moment comparable to the legendary "I am your father" from The Empire Strikes Back, something never before seen in cinema. Yet it wasnt that it all. Instead, it was a somewhat surprising, somewhat emotional moment that had the emotional staying power of a jump scare. Instead of this beeing a traumatic experience for the audience and going home all depressed, instead it evoked nothing more in the audience than an "awesome, what a doozy". The red wedding in game of thrones showed how a moment like this can trigger raw emotions in the audience, and Infinity War could have been this, but much more grand and effective. Instead it was the same thing that every other Marvel movie strives for: Giving you something to laugh about as you exit the cinema, beeing forgotten soon after. And the reason its this way is because Marvel just isnt interested in telling their story with any artistic integrity. Imagine the impact that this moment could have had if Marvel actually emotionally connected its audience in this universe, in these characters. And not just in the most shallow way possible, by having charismatic actors throw around funny quips. It would have been something we had never seen before. The MCU had the opportunity to be so much more than the fast food of the movie world. A series of movies told in this format could be an artful masterpiece that really nothing else can be compared to. And Im saddened that instead, the first cinematic universe that we get was made with the intention of sustaining mediocrity. And none of these movies will be remembered once the MCU hype dies down. But it didnt have to be this way.
  12. I didnt call you shallow specifically (dont even recognize your username), but with the post you just made you definitely fall into the group I referenced in my post. So yes, I think people with your perspective on art have a very shallow view on these type of things, aswell as that what you have to say about movies and art in general has very little, if any, merit.
  13. The first legendary Godzilla is a pretty good movie that manages to express more through its cinematography and directing alone than most other movies do through its entirety. An incredible achievement in visual storytelling. With a tighter script, it could easily have been an all-time classic. Im disappointed that the director of the first one doesnt return for the sequel, but Im still curious to see how this one turns out. The atmosphere of the trailer is something that I already dig.
  14. Doesnt surprise me in the slightest. There are alot of shallow traditionally minded people in the world who are incapable of understanding and appreciating a unique vision. Art isnt meant for these kinds of people.
  15. Honestly, I think if Infinity War 1 and TFA couldnt even beat Titanic, no other movie till perhaps Avatar 2 will be able to beat that mark. People are overestimating what Lion King will pull I think, I dont see it beeing exceptionally huge. In a market where people are so conditioned to these comic book genre films, I dont think a movie like Lion King will have the pull it once had. Maybe in 10 years when things have shifted again. I see Lion King pulling BATB numbers, perhaps abit higher.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.