Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[TomCruiseTop]

7 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

I had to break what I said about letting you talk to yourself, but see, that's really funny... coming from a guy who responded to "take away the visuals and Avatar is not a very good film" with "Infinite Jest, take away the text, and it really just wasn't a great book".

 

If you can't understand something well enough (like understanding damn well what someone means when they say "visuals" in a forum about Hollywood movies), then maybe you shouldn't be talking about it either.

I understand the way in which I used 'visual' perfectly well, what I am trying to understand in this dialogue is the apparent difference between visual and visual effect a term that I never introduced. 

[MCKillswitch123]

9 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

I understand the way in which I used 'visual' perfectly well, what I am trying to understand in this dialogue is the apparent difference between visual and visual effect a term that I never introduced. 

Because you argued that Avatar would not exist if it didn't have visuals (and by "visuals", the poster obviously meant CGI/VFX), by comparing it to a book with no text. A movie can still have actors acting out a story through characters and dialogue, even if the CGI was unfinished. It'd be a weird thing where you'd see actors in front of a green screen, but you would still get a movie out of that. While a book with no text is if you gave an actor a script with no text - it'd be a white paper with absolutely nothing in there.

 

And what the poster who said "Avatar wouldn't be very good without the visuals" meant is simple: the actors, the story, etc., those weren't very good, and the movie was elevated by the CGI.

 

Forget the visual/visual effect non-sense and just focus on the paragraphs above, as that's where I'm coming from here.

Edited February 14, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[TomCruiseTop]

2 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

you argued that Avatar would not exist if it didn't have visuals

This is still true. How are you managing to question the fact a movie would not exist if it there were no visuals? 

 

You're still making zero sense. I'm still trying to understand what you mean by VFX vs the term 'Visual' - answer my question about the white screen that was shot black please, I think that will help me understand. 

[MCKillswitch123]

6 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

This is still true. How are you managing to question the fact a movie would not exist if it there were no visuals? 

 

You're still making zero sense. I'm still trying to understand what you mean by VFX vs the term 'Visual' - answer my question about the white screen that was shot black please, I think that will help me understand. 

I've always used "visuals" as an abridged version of "visual effects". That's what I mean, and I'm pretty sure that's what he meant as well. We all know around here that a movie cannot be a movie without anything to be seen through the eyes. But a movie can exist without VFX/visual effects/whatever you wanna call them, which should not even be in question. Avatar absolutely could exist without that. That's what I'm arguing, and that's what I'm trying to either make you understand or wasting my time trying.

Edited February 14, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[TomCruiseTop]

1 minute ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

I've always used "visuals" as an abridged version of "visual effects". That's what I mean, and I'm pretty sure that's what he meant as well. We all know around here that a movie cannot be a movie without anything to be seen through the eyes. But a movie can exist without VFX/visual effects/whatever you wanna call them, which should not even be in question. Avatar absolutely could exist without that. That's what I'm arguing, and that's what I'm trying to either make you understand or wasting my time trying.

Except I disagree with the point in bold it's like me making the argument "Star Wars wouldn't have been as successful without the light sabers."

 

That line of reasoning fails on two fronts: 

 

i) Star Wars without light sabers isn't Star Wars. That's a false dichotomy. 

ii) I cannot substantiate the above claim even if I wanted to, as there is no Star Wars without light sabers that I could test my hypothesis on. 

 

In sum - your argument lacks the requirement any proper argument requires - falsification. 

 

[MCKillswitch123]

Just now, JamesCameronScholar said:

Except I disagree with the point in bold it's like me making the argument "Star Wars wouldn't have been as successful without the light sabers."

 

That line of reasoning fails on two fronts: 

 

i) Star Wars without light sabers isn't Star Wars. That's a false dichotomy. 

ii) I cannot substantiate the above claim even if I wanted to, as there is no Star Wars without light sabers that I could test my hypothesis on. 

 

In sum - your argument lacks the requirement any proper argument requires - falsification. 

 

I never said "Avatar wouldn't have been as successful without the CGI". I said "Avatar could exist without the CGI". There's still a movie there if you take out the CGI. You could've set the movie up in a jungle, put the actors in blue makeup, have practical effects for the flying creatures, and so fort. The cinematography, the script, the characters... they all stay the exact same in that scenario. And even if you don't do that, and you just show us a movie with unfinished green screen, there's still enough "movie" there (story/characters/acting) to say that it's a movie, not a black screen. If it's a good one or not, I don't know, but it's a movie that still exists. It's not like a book without text, where you're left with zero anything, be it story, characters or whatever.

 

Also, how does the Star Wars comparison make any sense here? Avatar was an original movie that had to set up an entire universe and the rules for said universe on its own; SW is a big franchise and every movie that succeeded the 1st one had to respect the rules set by the 1st one. Only if you're talking about A New Hope, and if that's the case, then... you're still wrong. Star Wars could still exist today in that scenario. Simply, lightsabers wouldn't have ever been a part of it. You don't have lightsabers, you'd have something else in its place.

[75Live]

[TomCruiseTop]

1 minute ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

I never said "Avatar wouldn't have been as successful without the CGI". I said "Avatar could exist without the CGI". There's still a movie there if you take out the CGI. You could've set the movie up in a jungle, put the actors in blue makeup, have practical effects for the flying creatures, and so fort. The cinematography, the script, the characters... they all stay the exact same in that scenario. And even if you don't do that, and you just show us a movie with unfinished green screen, there's still enough "movie" there (story/characters/acting) to say that it's a movie, not a black screen. If it's a good one or not, I don't know, but it's a movie that still exists. It's not like a book without text, where you're left with zero anything, be it story, characters or whatever.

 

Also, how does the Star Wars comparison make any sense here? Avatar was an original movie that had to set up an entire universe and the rules for said universe on its own; SW is a big franchise and every movie that succeeded the 1st one had to respect the rules set by the 1st one. Only if you're talking about A New Hope, and if that's the case, then... you're still wrong. Star Wars could still exist today in that scenario. Simply, lightsabers wouldn't have ever been a part of it. You don't have lightsabers, you'd have something else in its place.

This is where the discussion falls down, you're breaking the most basic of logics, that's why I can't understand you. 

 

You're saying Star Wars would be Star Wars without sabers, or logically x=x-p when that is patently false. The law of identity exists for a reason. 

 

Avatar is Avatar removing an aspect of it makes it something else, were I to edit it down and remove a single minute it would no longer be Avatar, I would have to denote it via some other name. 

[MCKillswitch123]

1 minute ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

This is where the discussion falls down, you're breaking the most basic of logics, that's why I can't understand you. 

 

You're saying Star Wars would be Star Wars without sabers, or logically x=x-p when that is patently false. The law of identity exists for a reason. 

 

Avatar is Avatar removing an aspect of it makes it something else, were I to edit it down and remove a single minute it would no longer be Avatar, I would have to denote it via some other name. 

......how does that make any sense? If the directors wanted to make a theatrical New Hope cut without lightsabers or a theatrical Avatar cut without an inch of CGI, then those would be the movies we'd be talking about today with no hesitation. If George Lucas went back in time and told his younger self "I don't want a single lightsaber in ANH, but the story remains the same" (since, unlike the CGI in Avatar, removing the lightsabers actually affects the story itself), then we wouldn't even know what lightsabers are today. And if James Cameron went back in time and he said it himself "I want Avatar to be an all-practical movie", then that's what Avatar would've been. Difference being that taking out lightsabers from SW is comparable to taking out, say, wands from Harry Potter (in-universe objects that are used as parts of the storytelling); while taking out the CGI in Avatar is like taking out the Ennio Morricone original score from The Good, The Bad And The Ugly: it takes out an iconic aspect of the movie, but one that, regarding the story itself, makes no real difference if you put in or take out.

 

Anyway, this is where I'm drawing the line on this dumb argument.

[That One Girl]

[TomCruiseTop]

5 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

......how does that make any sense? If the directors wanted to make a theatrical New Hope cut without lightsabers or a theatrical Avatar cut without an inch of CGI, then those would be the movies we'd be talking about today with no hesitation. If George Lucas went back in time and told his younger self "I don't want a single lightsaber in ANH, but the story remains the same" (since, unlike the CGI in Avatar, removing the lightsabers actually affects the story itself), then we wouldn't even know what lightsabers are today. And if James Cameron went back in time and he said it himself "I want Avatar to be an all-practical movie", then that's what Avatar would've been. Difference being that taking out lightsabers from SW is comparable to taking out, say, wands from Harry Potter (in-universe objects that are used as parts of the storytelling); while taking out the CGI in Avatar is like taking out the Ennio Morricone original score from The Good, The Bad And The Ugly: it takes out an iconic aspect of the movie, but one that, regarding the story itself, makes no real difference if you put in or take out.

 

Anyway, this is where I'm drawing the line on this dumb argument.

And if you took out any of the aspects you mentioned then you would have to denote it differently to the non-changed version. The law of identity still holds. 

 

I'll chalk this up as a win for logic. 

 

@That One Guy That's always the best reaction to a topic of discussion you don't like - to silence it. It's no wonder you didn't understand the most basic aspect of the US voting system, you seem to be actively against some of its founding principles. 

[Harpospoke]

 

2 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

This is still true. How are you managing to question the fact a movie would not exist if it there were no visuals? 

 

You're still making zero sense. I'm still trying to understand what you mean by VFX vs the term 'Visual' - answer my question about the white screen that was shot black please, I think that will help me understand. 

It think it falls back on the context of what the original poster said and meant.

 

You are right.   No movie would exist if you removed all visuals.

 

So knowing that...is that what the original poster meant when talking about Avatar?

 

That statement would not mean anything special about the movie Avatar if it just meant "remove all the visual elements and the movie wouldn't be as good".   That would be true of every movie ever made.

 

So knowing the poster was talking about Avatar....doesn't that indicate the poster meant "CGI visuals"?   ...Or...the main thing that made Avatar a big deal?  

 

The counter argument would be that the FX in Avatar is not a minor achievement.   Removing that achievement would of course diminish it.   But removing a major achievement from any movie would diminish it as well.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Harpospoke

[Barnack]

I think some mistake here is to thing movies are about stories, story can be told for free on a short wikipedia page, there is no need to take year's telling a story, we do not like The Big Lebowski because of is story (I guess many people do not remember what the story is one weak after seeing and loving the movie) and it is not a big deal that you take it's beloved character, dialogue, interaction out and that the movie fell apart, is Tree of Life so good because of it's photography, special effects and use of music, would it exploration of what it mean to exist in this universe still interesting without that elite craft level ?

 

Those are fun question and game to play, but the only goal of a movie is to have a nice subjective experience by a certain amount of people and there is no easy to achieve that to a discernible audience, if the music in the art piece is necessary, is seeing it in theater with a crowd is necessary, if having seen the previous movie of the entry is necessary, whatever that.... it is what the artist created.... Remove the visual of MadMax or The Raid ....

Edited February 14, 2018 by Barnack

[dudalb]

6 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

What he said is that a movie nominated for Best Picture wasn't acclaimed, and that Cameron isn't "subjectively" successful because he didn't like Avatar. And then he called everyone else fanboys.

What part of "There is a difference between finanicial success and artistic success" don't you get, I have never denied Avatar was a huge success at the box office. I just think it's not all that great of a movie.

[IronJimbo]

2 minutes ago, dudalb said:

What part of "There is a difference between finanicial success and artistic success" don't you get, I have never denied Avatar was a huge success at the box office. I just think it's not all that great of a movie.

All said and done, we're friend here. I'll be happy to buy you some popcorn at the midnight release.

[vc2002]

Black Panther, a supporting role in early TA films, will have a OW 2x as bigger as JL. In fact its 4-day will likely beat JL's DOM total $228m.

 

I guess this is Marvel vs DC now.

 

 

[WeneedtotalkaboutKevin]

3 hours ago, vc2002 said:

Black Panther, a supporting role in early TA films, will have a OW 2x as bigger as JL. In fact its 4-day will likely beat JL's DOM total $228m.

 

I guess this is Marvel vs DC now.

 

 

LOL. If only their Kevins can shift. Things might turn around.

 

 

[TomCruiseTop]

3 hours ago, vc2002 said:

Black Panther, a supporting role in early TA films, will have a OW 2x as bigger as JL. In fact its 4-day will likely beat JL's DOM total $228m.

 

I guess this is Marvel vs DC now.

 

 

Just think, BP might even reach 0.3A! 

[eXtacy]

I think its time for a title change. Marvel definitely winning this year.

[Asyulus]

9 hours ago, vc2002 said:

Black Panther, a supporting role in early TA films, will have a OW 2x as bigger as JL. In fact its 3-day will likely beat JL's DOM total $228m.

 

I guess this is Marvel vs DC now.

 

 

Fixed.