Crainy
-
Posts
203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Crainy
-
-
30 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:
The writers strike excuse for TF2 got progressively more dubious as the movies got crappier. Bay just had a far different idea of what he thinks is entertaining than his critics and ultimately audiences did.
He may have been passionate, but it wasn't about the right things.
There are many people like me that love and appreciate the Transformers movies. As I always like to say, Michael Bays work has a great deal of artistry to it that I think far to few people can appreciate. Michael Bay is a director that has a very specific style unique to him that he uses to tell his stories and his style definitely doesnt appeal to everyone. But thats the thing, art often times is divisive and not for everyone and thats ok.
You dont have to like his movies, but you are wrong in thinking that there arent also alot of people who see alot of value in Michael Bays work.
-
On 1/9/2019 at 10:55 PM, Telemachos said:
I mean, I am. Watched it several times in theaters, cheered it on during that historic run........... but I think it's got maybe the weakest characters in Cameron's filmography (especially supporting characters). I dunno, I'd have to see it again, it's been a little while. In terms of your more general point, I'm in agreement: all of his films are pretty dang good.
I have to agree here. I havent seen Titanic in a long time, but it never struck me as a particularly great movie. Its definitely a good movie, but I dont think its on the level of some of James Camerons other work, particularly Avatar, Aliens or T2.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Barnack said:
Listening to the interview of the writers of the Transformer 2 script didn't scream dedication and care, it got so big that at one point putting the level of dedication and care would have meant pushing the release date and not having a little studio of people not working, not an easy decision to make.
15 hours ago, Barnack said:Yep like I said completely untrue all Bay movies are some dedicated and high care story, too beloved to mess with, 2 weeks for the scripts and throwing curve ball at them in the middle of it (Ok you need to include X military new toy in the plot, etc...).
The list is long of blockbuster made without a script ready when pre-production start.
You are terribly misinformed. What happened with Transformers 2 happened because of the writers strike. Yes, the script was rushed and Bay was the first to admit that. He didnt move the release date because he was confident that he could make a quality product anyways and he also made preparations for the writers strike before it happened so the writers and the entire production team had an easier time. That they didnt move the release date WAS an act of dedication and care, in Michael Bays own way (he´s also a director that really cares about staying on budget).
This is a terrible example of yours and means nothing. Even Transformers 2 is a movie made with alot of dedication and care, it was just a victim of its circumstances. They build a town in the desert for it just so they have something to blow up for the final act. They filmed on-location in egypt and to my knowledge it was the first movie in many many years that got the permission to film at and ON the Pyramids. Michael Bay flew halfway across the world just for a single day, just so he could personally direct the CGI crew when they were creating the films only (and franchises first) fully CGI animated sequence (the decepticon scene on the crashed decepticon spaceship). They also created the most complex CGI shot of the time for this movie with Devastator taking down the Pyramids. Michael Bay worked on the final cut of the movie personally up until HOURS before the movies initial premiere.
That Transformers 2 didnt need to move its release date is a testament to Michael Bays work ethic. I personally think he should have moved the release date as writing the script in just two weeks definitely resulted in a worse movie, but it was not an easy decision.
Transformers 2 is a flawed movie, but its still a labor of love. If you want to judge a man and his work, be sure to inform yourself properly first, because what you are saying here is just wrong.
-
11 hours ago, JB33 said:
You didn't dispel anything. You stated YOUR opinion.
Good review, though.
That statement was in regards to dispelling myths that lead into question Michael Bays integrity as a filmmaker. Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of facts. What Michael Bay does and does not and wether or not his movies were made with dedication and care put into them (no matter if you like the end result or not) is a matter of facts, not a matter of opinion. I stated the objective facts. Opinions are irrelevant on this matter.
Glad you like my "review", though.
-
Alright, finally went to see this one.
Before I talk about my thoughts on the movie, let me preface with the history that I have with the Transformers movies. The first Transformers movie by Michael Bay is my favorite movie of all time and it changed my life forever by inspiring me to become a filmmaker myself, a goal I have been working on ever since and I have worked on many personal and professional projects since then. Seeing that movie in the cinema for the first time was an experience I will never forget, it was the first movie that really showed me the value that movies as art can have. I think its an expressive and artful masterpiece - in general I think theres a truly nuanced artistry to Michael Bays work that far to few people are capable of appreciating. The second one I think is a very flawed but overall good movie with some standout qualities. The third one is great. The fourth one is alright and the fifth one unfortunately is one of the worst movies Ive ever seen and nobody is more unhappy about that then me. Nonetheless, that we can have a blockbuster titled "Bumblebee" in 2019 that is capable of holding its own at the box office is a testament to the formidable movie franchise Michael Bay and his team created here and how these movies (especially the first three) really managed to connect with audiences.
With that out of the way, onto "Bumblebee". From back when the first trailer dropped for this movie, I was curious to see how a different director would approach a Transformers movies that follows in the footsteps of Bays work. Overall, I think its pretty decent with some really good stuff in it, but unfortunately it also has quite alot of flaws.
The movie opens up very strong with some pretty good action sequences. As seen in the trailers, parts of this movie takes place on Cybertron. These scenes are also the best thing about "Bumblebee". The thing with this movie is, it almost feels like two different halves that dont quite fit well together. You have the stuff on Cybertron thats leaning more towards G1 and its genuinly different from the things we saw in Bays movies while still paying homage to his work here and there. That stuff is really good, I really like the G1 designs in this film. The G1 inspired stuff in this movie feels like its own vision that is capable of standing on its own.
And then you have the stuff on earth, which honestly feels like a worse version of things we have already seen in the first Michael Bay Transformers movie. Its funny how Bumblebee´s design in this film is a perfect example of this. He looks alot like in the Bay movies, just worse and less inspired. And thats how alot of the things that happen on Earth in this film feel like, it feels like if a less creative and inspired team worked on the first Transformers film. We have already seen the story of the teenager that gets his/hers first car that happens to be Bumblebee in the first Transformers movie, but there it was done significantly better, because in the first Transformers movie that plot was woven in neatly with the greater overall narrative of the movie and just in general executed better with better directing, cinematography and actors. We have already seen Bumblebee getting captured by the military. We have already seen the teenager trying to keep the secret from everyone. This was all covered in the first 40 minutes of the first Transformers movie.
The main problem with this plot is just how generic it feels. In the first Transformers movie, this wasnt the case because of what they decided to focus on, but in this movie the human element and the overarching plot is as generic as it gets. It literally feels like your generic "teenager/kid meets extraordinary creature and they bond" story that has been done a million times and this movie just has nothing to add to the formula. It also doesnt help that the cinematography and directing in this movie is also as generic as it gets, even if they are some good shots here and there. The incredible score from Steven Jablonsky from the Michael Bay movies gets replaced here with really incredibly forgettable tunes - for the most part. There are some really nice more electronic score elements in this movie that go very well with some of their G1 stuff. There are also some callbacks to the themes from the Michael Bay movies and everytime those get used it works really well, so good job on that. The CGI and sound design in this movie is also significantly worse than what we have seen in the Bay movies.
The two villan decepticons in this movie are also another good example of what I mean: Their designs look like rejected designs from the Bay movies. They look like designs from the Bay movies, just less inspired and worse. Which is a shame, because the fighter jet in the beginning actually has a really good design and again, the G1 stuff is excellent.
And this is a shame, because when the movie does its own thing and pulls further away from what came before in the Bay films and goes more into G1 territory, thats when the movie comes into its own. I think we would have been better off if this movie would have been a full reboot that goes all-out on the G1 stuff.
Ive also read on the internet that apparently this movie was made with more "heart" than the Michael Bay films. To those people I say, you are full of shit and you should feel bad for judging the hard work of an artist and his team based on shallow superstitions you read on the internet. Michael Bay is an incredibly passionate filmmaker that puts his heart and soul into his craft and everyone who has ever worked with the guy will tell you as much. Quick example, the guy took a 40% cut to his paycheck on the first Transformers movie just so he could work with his long-time team. The Transformers movies by him are not some assembly line productions and I advise you to look up some of the making-of material regarding them. Each one of these movies were enourmous undertakings, both artistically and from a technical standpoint. New technologies were created for each one and existing technologies pushed to their limits and the artists that worked on these movies, for example CGI and the sound designers, pushed their abilities with each entry. Which is why the first three movies were nominated for 7 oscars in total. While Marvel had actors playing pretend infront of a greenscreen, Michael Bay and his team split a bus at 80 miles per hour, flipped actual cars into actual buildings and build an entire town in the desert just so they have something that they can blow up with actual explosives. And they build that town twice!
A movie doesnt have "heart" because it caters to G1 fans or something. Michael Bay cares about the Transformers franchise and he listened to fans where it actually mattered (for example, casting Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime), but he wasnt interested in making a G1 adapation, he was interested in making Transformers movies that stand on their own with their own artistic integrity.
Another thing: There seems to be this notion going around in some of the "critics" reviews that this movie is more "nuanced" then the Michael Bay films. That is just completely wrong. As a filmmaker myself, I like to think that I have a more nuanced opinion on movies as art than the common movie-goer and I can tell you there is nothing subtle or nuanced about this movie. Everything is laid out infront of you to make sure everyone can understand it without thinking. And if critics think that an incredibly generic human plotline that we have seen in the same manner a hundred times over counts as nuanced or subtle, then I would say the artful cinematography in the Michael Bay films that connects the audience emotionally much more with whats going on adds more subtlety and nuance to a film than a generic drama plotline.
I felt like it was worth adressing these points with all the senseless vitrol on the internet that gets directed at Michael Bay and his work and to dispel some of these myths.
In any case, its a decent movie, definitely better than the fifth entry in the franchise, but it would have been better off if it would have been a full reboot that focuses on the new vision of a more G1 inspired Transformers. The rest of the movie just made me appreciate the first Michael Bay Transformers movie even more and how it wasnt a painfully generic "teenager meets extraordinary creature tale" that we were presented with here.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Deep Wang said:
So what can you tell me about the fauna of Pandora?
14 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:Direhorse (Pa'li in Naʼvi) – is a bioluminescent, hexapodal, superficially equine animal. It is scientifically known as Equidirus hoplites. The Naʼvi use the Direhorse to hunt.The Direhorse was conceived and designed by Cameron and Stan Winston Studios. The Direhorse is grey with blue stripes and stands thirteen feet (4.0 meters) tall, fourteen feet (4.3 meters) long. The Naʼvi "break" a Direhorse by connecting the fleshy tip of their hair to the animal's antennae. Xenobiologists call this a neural whip. Once intertwined, the Naʼvi rider can communicate motor commands instantly through the neural interface; however, this connection does not lead to a lifelong, exclusive bond, as it does with the Mountain Banshee. Cameron described the creature as a "six-legged alien Clydesdale with moth-like antennae". The Direhorse uses its long tongue to eat the sap out of Pitcher Plants.
Mountain Banshee (Ikran in Naʼvi) – is an airborne predator which lives in mountainous territory on Pandora. Naʼvi warriors attempt to bond with a Banshee, a dangerous and required rite of passage. They are cousins to the Great Leonopteryx and they are scientifically known by Xenobiologists as Pterodactylus giganteus. A Banshee bonds to a Naʼvi warrior for life. They are four-winged creatures that, like the Leonopteryx and Direhorse, have a biologically produced carbon fiber flexing on the skin. Neytiri had a Banshee named Seze (translated from the language of the Naʼvi roughly as "blue flower"). Page spent the most time designing the Banshee for the film so it would be convincing when it flew or perched. The designer said, "The hardest thing of all was having a Naʼvi on top of it and flying it. You had to backwards engineer it. It was like designing and engineering an aircraft." Barlowe, who contributed to the Banshee's design, was influenced by manta rays and skatesas well as relatively little-known pterosaurs and plesiosaurs that had "many, unique aerodynamic and hydrodynamic" characteristics. Like the color scheme for the Great Leonopteryx, color schemes based on Earth animals were used for various Banshees, though Page was inspired by Art Nouveau prints to warp the schemes so they would not look familiar to film audiences.
Great Leonopteryx (Toruk in Naʼvi, meaning last shadow) – is the apex airborne predator native to Pandora. It is scientifically known as Leonopteryx rex, meaning "king lion-wing". The fierce beauty and nobility of the Leonopteryx gave the species a place central to Naʼvi lore and culture. The Leonopteryx is scarlet with black stripes and a midnight blue crest on top of the head and on the lower jaw. It is celebrated in dance and song; elaborate totems symbolize both the fear and respect accorded to the creature. The Leonopteryx is considered crucial to the Naʼvi sense of destiny and interconnectedness. Prior to the events of the film, it had only been tamed five times, and Neytiri tells Jake that the riders (Toruk Makto) brought peace among the Pandoran tribes. This makes Jake the sixth Toruk Makto. He manages to capture one by jumping on it from above from his Banshee but releases it after the battle with the humans has ended. The Great Leonopteryx and the Banshee were designed with bright colors. Page based the colors on Earth's birds, poison dart frogs, and monarch butterflies, though he altered the patterns so that their inspirations would not be so conspicuous to moviegoers. The skull and crest shapes appear to be derived from pterosaurs from the genus Tapejara.
Hammerhead Titanothere ('Angtsìk in Naʼvi) – is a large hexapodal herbivore whose massive, low-slung head features bony projections on either side of the skull, similar to those of Terran hammerhead sharks. These protrusions are often used to push and destroy objects: a single sideways thrust of the neck being sufficient to down a significantly sized tree. The Titanothere has exceedingly thick, gray skin. There is a small "fan" feather structure on the head that it flares up as a warning symbol seen in the film and in the video game. The creature, which resembles a cross between a rhinoceros and a hammerhead shark, is easily aroused. Its hide is impervious to human ammunition, though firing on it is known to anger it. This massive, grazing creature travels in moderately large herds or packs of 10–20 animals. Avatar creature designer Yuri Bartoli explained about the creature's colorful threat display: "Originally, the Hammerhead just had to be a huge creature, big enough that even a Thanator would think twice about attacking one. A threat display is meant to be seen, so it required bright colors that would stand out against its more muted body". It is moderately social, but also extremely territorial and hierarchical. A soft ungulate mouth is protected by a rigid, beak-like jaw structure. The species is scientifically known as Titanotheris hammercephalis. In the climax of the film, a bunch of Hammerhead Titanothere assist the Naʼvi in their battle against Colonel Miles Quaritch's army.
Hexapede (Yerik in Naʼvi) – are hexapodal deer-like creatures. They are dark blue herbivores with white and yellow stripes. Twin horn structures sheathe a thin, patterned membrane structure. Their small, sloped skull is topped by this light-colored fan structure. This fan has an eye pattern on it similar to those found in Terran insects. A skin membrane hangs under the jaw and runs the length of the neck. Twin lines of dark hairlike bristles run down the Hexapede's back. The antennae are at the back at the head. As a threat display, the Hexapede flares up its twin membrane structure like a satellite dish and retracts both lips. It is scientifically known as Sexcruscervus caeruleus.
Prolemuris (Syaksyuk in Naʼvi) – are blue, hexapodal creatures based on Earth's lemurs. They have two eyes, small nostrils, and their two upper arms are partially fused. Like most Pandoran creatures, they have a queue on the back of their heads. They have lateral skin membranes on each side of the body. They have large eyes and grow 1.5 meters tall.
Thanator (Palulukan in Naʼvi) – is a large hexapodal land predator that is believed, by the RDA, to be the apex land predator. It is scientifically known as Bestiapanthera ferox. Cameron personally designed the creature. The Thanator is first seen when Jake wanders off into the jungle and touches multiple Helicoradian leaves, at which they retract to reveal a family of Hammerhead Titanotheres behind. The Thanator frightens the Titanotheres and pursues Jake. Jake later escapes the Thanator by jumping down a waterfall. It later appears during the climax where it assists Neytiri and later battles Quaritch's AMP Suit Beyond Glory, but is killed by the AMP suit's knife. The Thanator is black with white fleshy skin under each hand. Its appearance is similar to a panther; Cameron describes the Thanator as "the panther from hell". The Thanator has ten sensory quills connected to six pads at the rear of the skull that flare up before it attacks the prey. The director explained how the Thanator is the most fearsome creature on Pandora, "The Thanator could eat a T-Rex and have the Alien for dessert."
Viperwolf (Nantang in Naʼvi) – is a hexapodal nocturnal carnivore. The species is scientifically known as Caniferratus costatus. It has bioluminescence for pack identification. Cameron described the Viperwolves: "[They are] hairless with shiny skin that looks like overlapped armor. Most disturbing are its paws, which are like leathery hands." They are vicious in combat but treat their babies in a loving, nurturing way. They are seen in the daytime caring for their babies and have green eyes. They have a laugh which sounds like Earth's hyenas. Like most Pandoran creatures, they have antennae. They have opposable thumbs allowing them to climb trees as well as stalk from the ground, thereby are able to create a three-dimensional hunting field.
What a brutal takedown.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Deuce66 said:
Yes the 2nd extended version is 178 minutes, the 3-disc Blu-Ray also includes a section on disc 2 that contains over 1 hour of extended/deleted scenes that didn't make any cut of the movie.
one example
This stuff is exactly what I mean. Having that scene included in the movie would have made the movie worse, it completely breaks the flow of that part of the movie and doesnt add anything substantial enough to justify it. You can be sure that for most of these scenes that did not make the cut, the situation is similar, theres a very good reason Cameron left them out. They are not "deleted scenes" in the sense that they are missing from the movie. Instead, the absence of these scenes is one of the aspects that form Avatar into the movie that it is.
As for what cut I think is best, the extended edition has alot of really interesting scenes in it and some of them I feel like do have an important place in the movie, but overall I think the theatrical cut is the best version of the film. To me, it feels like thats the version of the film that accomplishes what its sets out to do best. I especially dislike that the extended edition starts on earth, I think the way the theatrical cut starts is perfect and sets up the rest of the film much better, aswell as it beeing one of my favorite scenes in the movie overall.
-
2
-
-
Wow that trailer didnt impress me at all. The cinematography, staging as well as costume and make-up effects look really cheap and terrible from a first glance, almost like its a fan-made movie. I didnt like the other Hellboy movies all that much either, but atleast they were quality productions and Ron Perlman was great.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Deuce66 said:
Avatar II - 2 Hours - 25 minutes
Avatar theatre cut was 162 minutes - 2 hours 42 min, I think they're going to tighten up the runtimes on the sequels, they had so much material for the first one....there's at least another hour of footage that could've been completed to flesh out the first movie, I don't think this will be an issue moving forward. I would love to see a fully realized/expanded version of Avatar but I don't think that will ever happen.
You have seen a fully realized version of Avatar. Its the movie you saw in the cinemas. More material doesnt mean better. If a director left that material out, its often times for the betterment of the movie, thats why editing is just an important part in the process of creating a movie.
As for runtime, I expect it to be alittle longer than the first one.
-
2
-
-
Will Smith as the genie looks precious, even without CGI. I look forward to his performance, I hope he knocks it out of the park.
Outside of that, Im not convinced by what we have seen so far, which to be fair, is very little.
-
Im still not 100% convinced Quaritch will be the villain in all of the Avatar sequels, atleast not in the way everyone is expecting.
-
55 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:
Y'all need to learn what this shortlist means before talking out of your ass. It's not a nomination! It's just a narrowed down shortlist by a panel selected from the individual branch in question (make-up, costume, music, vfx). They have not even starting voting on nominations. Jesus people, educate yourself.
You are exactly right. Its a narrowed down list of movies that will be considered more closely for an exceptional achievement in VFX, and Black Panther shouldnt be anywhere near a list like that. Black Panthers VFX are not even mediocre, they are straight up terrible and most definitely nowhere near exceptional. Every run-of-the-mill blockbuster released this year has better VFX than Black Panther.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, The Futurist said:
The VFX branch discredited itself when they gave the oscar to that awful bear while Bay and ILM were changing the game in lighting, rendering and compositing in broad day light the same year.
Disegraceful really.
While I agree that Transformers by Michael Bay definitely should have won best VFX oscar that year as it was a game changer, the VFX oscar isnt decided by the VFX branch. All people that are a member of the Academy, which are many thousand people, vote on EVERY oscar category. You can be sure that most voters dont really think too hard about most of the more specific categories, outside of actor, actress, best picture and best director.
Decisions like that arent the result of many sleepless nights of consideration from members in the Academy, in actuality very little thought goes into an oscar win like that.
-
10 hours ago, AndyLL said:
You're posts
And Tele's post....
I think the 2 sets of posts speak for themselves and I'll leave it at that.
I stand behind every single one of those statements.
-
Peter Jackson is a legend. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece and some of the finest movies in the history of film. You cant top something like that. His other work is all solid too and that the Hobbit movies were mostly misses is not his fault, those movies were horribly mismanaged from the studio side of things and that in the end a movie as good as Desolation of Smaug still ended up coming out of that shows how talented and dedicated Jackson is.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, AndyLL said:
@Telemachos has never "mocked or patronized" a new member as long as he's been on these forums. ( which was as a founding staff member )
I wasn't asking you to consider taking a different tone when posting... I was politely telling you that the staff found your posts borderline unacceptable.
I am now telling you less politely that if it continues you will be banned from posting in this thread.
And as a general warning to everybody... trying to pump up Avatar and Avatar 2-n by tearing down other films will not be tolerated. Lets keep to the talk here on Avatar itself and take the comparisons to other movies to the Franchise War thread.
Assuming that I havent watched alot of movies because I appreciate Avatar is patronizing and disrespectful and I wont have you or anyone else tell me it isnt. And dont worry, I understood your request and I will follow it. I just wish this kind of proactive enforcement promoting acceptance would be seen on this board in other threads and other situations aswell, it would surely result in alot more fruitful discussion taking place.
-
5 minutes ago, TimmyRiggins said:
I'd disagree that there is anything in the three TF films, Godzilla or TFA that surpasses Avatar in terms of VFX. Not that they're even comparable anyway?! As you said, most of Avatar is filled to the brim with CG in almost every shot, and that although there are small sets for Pandora itself, the outdoors, most of it is pure CG. And it's still astounding, it feels like a real world, the Na'Vis are photoreal, I'll give you maybe some of the crowd shots where it's possible some of the Na'Vis that aren't the leads are perhaps less detailed but even then, it never falters.
I'm restating what you said a bit here, but it was just to make a point.
There are so many shots that are still breathtaking to this day when the light looks a certain way, ie Jake and Neytiri approaching the banshees, just before Jake is about go to try and grab one, Neytiri lays her hand on his chest and tells him a few things before he goes. The moment where he says "Outstanding" for example.
Or I don't know, when Jake wakes up after the Hometree has been blown to pieces, with the ashes raining all around him. Or the duel vs Quaritch, and so many others. I'd argue that it's still unsurpassed, only Dawn and War are on the same level, and they're apes, not humanoid blueish creatures.
Thats why I said "in certain elements". And of course you are right when you say its not directly comparable. However, with that said, the Transformers in Transformers 1 and 3 look more photorealistic than anything in Avatar, they are an incredible accomplishment of CGI design.
Its not a fair comparison seeing how they are two very different types of movies, but its still the case. Its especially notable when comparing something like an Avatar mech to Optimus Prime, there is a gap in quality there.
-
I havent seen Valerian or Mortal Engines yet (though Im planning to), but knowing the behavior of the GA, a movie like that flopping doesnt have to come down to quality. Alot of people on this board and the GA today (and I guess most of the people on this board belong to the GA) display a great inability to appreciate movies that do not fall into a very limited niche. As soon as a movie is interested in beeing a worthwhile piece of art and tell their stories in more expressive and artful ways, it seems like most audience members of today are completely incapable of understanding and reading that movie, leading them to dislike it and call it "bad™".
In an environment like that, its very hard for movies who aspire to be anything more than generic to succeed. Now I cant say if this also applies to these two cases, but if you are complaining about not enough original movies succeeding, the fault probably lies in part with you and how you define "quality".
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 12/16/2018 at 11:43 AM, Brainbug said:
Having watched Avatar just 2 days ago, its CGI (without the 3D effect) isnt that special anymore. Infinity War for example had much better CGI. Though thats really not surprising, considering the film came out 9 years ago.
There are movies out there now that have better CGI than Avatar, but Infinity War isnt one of them. Marvel movies for the most part have all pretty mediocre technical qualifications and this is true for the CGI aswell. Thanos is well realized in Infinity War, but otherwise the CGI in Infinity War ranges from mediocre to downright bad, its not even close to the grandness and level of complexity that Avatar has. Especially taking into consideration just how massive the amout of CGI is that Avatar actually uses, even compared to most films today.
There are certain movies that have surpassed Avatar in certain elements when it comes to VFX (the first 3 Transformers movies, Godzilla 2014, probably TFA, havent seen the Apes movies), but whats still unprecedented is the level of commitment to CGI that Avatar has to build its world and story.
-
2
-
-
On 12/15/2018 at 4:38 AM, AndyLL said:
Settle down.
For a new user you're pretty antagonistic to other members.
If you're going to stay around here long enough to see Avatar II release than you might consider starting to respect others opinions.
I do respect other people´s opinions, but Im antagonistic towards people who mock and patronize other people for liking movies they dislike, which is behavior thats extremly common here and on other boards aswell. Thats just bullying and surely that behavior isnt okay either? Afterall you cant expect someone to not be antagonistic towards people who have no problem with questioning your intelligence just because they have a different opinion on movies.
11 hours ago, Yandereprime101189 said:Yeah, Aquaman kinda beat Avatar 2 to the punch with the underwater space opera concept. I mean never underestimate James Cameron, but still.
Its all about execution and quality. Exploring the deep has been one of Camerons passions for a long time, Aquaman wont hold a candle to the amout of accuracy and quality James Cameron will be able to bring to the table here.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Telemachos said:
You do you, man.
Yep, thats about the reply I expected from you. If you cant be bothered to think about something, stop talking about it.
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
-
9 minutes ago, Telemachos said:
You're not gonna change someone's opinion just by saying they're wrong. They're not wrong, we all react to different movies in different ways. If you dig AVATAR (and I do), it's because the setting/themes/presentation trump the very traditional, conventional story. If you don't have as strong a connection (and you've seen a lot of movies), maybe you get more bothered by the conventionality of the characters and plot.
It's cool. Plenty of room for everyone.
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.
-
1
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Brainbug said:
Its just my (very short) opinion. I dont have the time or energy right now to write a proper review.
Ok, i try it in three sentences: Avatar looks and sounds very expensive and impressive, the effects look sometimes a bit weird on TV, but most of the time they still work very well and the worldbuilding in the movie is excellently handeled like one could expect from Cameron, the Cinematography especially looks great,
However, the films characters and the script are just average and the plot (i was spoiler-free) was extremely predictable, devoid of any real tension.
I did know about the memes that Avatar is just Pocahontas in space/Dance with the Wolves with blue people and it...kinda is, yeah. Nothing about the film except from the World of Pandora itself is that new. Its a good looking, entertaining action film and not much more.
For me, Cameron peaked with Terminator 2, still one of the Top 5 action films of all time. That Cameron i kinda miss.
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.
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, Brainbug said:
Oh no, someone is butthurt
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.
Glass | Jan 18, 2019 | The 22nd Most Profitable Movie of 2019
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
Well yes, when a movie is divisive, the people that dislike it often times scream the loudest. But also often times divisive movies are the best of movies, because great art is not everyone and never will be.