Actually, I remember Siskel and Ebert giving 'two thumbs up' praise to The Spirits Within for their technical achievements, so unfortunately that doesn't disprove my theory that "good looks = good movie".
That doesn't disprove my argument, either. Those are two people in an ocean of reviewers and audience members, and the general reaction to Spirits Within was poor regardless.
Concerning CG: And I was talking about the achievements that CG made as a whole, as in what technology was able to achieve through a developing technology that had its pioneering feats throughout the 30 years it's been around. "Toy Story" could have been with claymation, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was made in CG, and was a milestone in what it could do. Avatar is a milestone in that respect, as well.
Then again, we've started agreeing with each other in that respect, and (I'm assuming) we've come to the agreement that it was a landmark in cinema for the reason of the effects it used. However, your main problem with it is the story so let's address this:
To tell a good story calls for good characters, and there are two breeds of story where two types of characters branch off from:
- Character-tales, where the 'plot' usually runs along the lines of following the exploits of a specific character. If my wording is confusing, then we'll use "The Big Lebowski" as an example. That's a character film that focuses more on The Dude and his group of friends than the story itself, which almost becomes irrelevant. Most of the humor in that is based off of the characters when faced with an obstacle or situation.
- A more traditional "plot-oriented" movie, where you inevitably run into some form of archetype within the characters involved. You know what had archetypal characters that's considered good? "Star Wars." To explain, you have the old master in Yoda (like in many stories from the East where you have a master figure), you have the pure hero, the one who always runs into trouble and manages to save the day in the end (Luke), the badass who works for the team (Han Solo, aka almost every Western created), and the damsel that needs rescuing, ala Leia. This last point can happen to some varying degrees, and they DO go to save her from some form of danger in both A New Hope and Return of the Jedi. Then, of course, you have the Big Bad ala Vader and the Puppet Master, ala Palpatine. You know what has archetypal characters that is also considered good? "Avatar." Yes, they are dated archetypes that would have fared better in the 1990's, but they are still there. You know what other film has archetypes that are less dated? "The Dark Knight." I'm not meaning to spark debate about this film again, but what you said above got me thinking:
"It questioned morality of a superhero and played a great game against the human condition... the line between villain and hero was progressively blurred"
Again, what parts of that haven't been explored in comic books before the film was made? That conflict has been going on for Superheroes ever since we entered the Comic "Dark Ages," to use a Linkara term, and The Dark Knight wasn't the first story to delve into that. Also, there were still archetypes to work from in there as well, and Batman's is obvious enough. What about the Joker? The Trickster, albeit a darker shade, who is a force of nature often there to cause chaos, closely related to Loki than anything else. In fact:
"In Native American traditions, the Trickster alternately scandalizes, disgusts, amuses, disrupts, chastises, and humiliates (or is humiliated by) the animal-like (Bat?) proto-people of pre-history, yet he is also a creative force transforming their world, sometimes in bizarre and outrageous ways, with his instinctive energies and cunning. Eternally scavenging, he represents the most basic instincts of chaos."
But anyway, way off topic. It's been established that Avatar has (dated) archetypal characters, but what else are there complaints about?
"Why are the scientists even on the base if their opinions are never even considered?"
"Why are the human characters (minus the 'noble' scientists) so stereotype: military is 'shoot first, questions later' and the corporate weasel who is a mix of Bernie Madoff and Heinrich Himmler (if genocide is profitable!!). Why is the story so black and white? All humans are greedy murderers, and the Na'vi are so loving and peaceful that they can do no wrong?"
I've already explained this at length, refer to above discussion.
"Judging by the attitudes of the military and the corporate heads, exactly what kinds of 'negotiations' did they ever attempt to make?"
If you pay attention, some way into the movie it's said that they've been on Pandora for a little while and have tried giving them what the humans think they want; Grace opened up a school but was banished when relations were getting worse, and it's been mentioned that they've tried to give them a trade-off or diplomatic solution before Sully even got there.
"Is there any explanation to the floating mountain physics of Pandora besides "it's magical"?"
I've noticed this come about a lot in your discussion, but let me bring forth something that cinema is made for: suspension of disbelief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbeliefThere doesn't have to be a logical explanation for everything; why do the mountains float? Because it's an alien planet. Why do their religion center around nature and trees? Because some religions do that, like the Celtic people around around 400 BC with their druids, who specifically went into Oak forests for rituals and religious ceremonies around the sacred mistletoe. The same principal applies because those religions are nature-based. It isn't hippie-ish or tree-hugging to have a religion based on nature, it's been done by ancient or native civilizations all the same.
Anyway, back on track: suspension of disbelief almost has to be used constantly in movies, or people are going to be trying to think every little detail through. For instance, in "Star Wars" before it was actually explained, what the hell was "the Force"? Why was King Kong so friggin huge? Why was it that The Joker had almost supernatural luck, and he wasn't just gunned down by the thugs in the pencil scene? Do you see where I am trying to go with this?
A primary function of cinema is escapism, and it is meant to help audience goers get away from the problems of real life. Yes, some of them tell really big, complex, deep stories, but was that the main point around the inception of film? Is that still the point for a lot of movies today? Maybe people like lighter films that just tell a simple story without the need to analyze every little detail, and maybe "Avatar" is one of those films. While we're on the perception of other people, you never really answered my question: If Spirits, although mesmerizing in effects, still got low scores from critics while Avatar, which totes the same thing, got exceptionally higher scores, than what does that say about the film itself?
Oh wow, I forgot about this point:
"Why are the scientists even on the base if their opinions are never even considered?"
Again, everybody's been there a while before Jake Sully came. Maybe they tried diplomatic solutions before, but they didn't work? This goes back to my response on why the military didn't negotiate. This kind of thing's been happening a million times before in history: The foundation for the mutilation of General Custer was because the white folks came into a reservation that they forced Native Americans into, after they discovered gold, and mined illegally. This forced the Natives from the reservation, and pretty soon they started sacking white homesteads. Custer was called in to exterminate them, and the men with superior technology were defeated by numbers more than anything else, just like in Avatar. The 'Battle' of Wounded Knee in the 1890's is another example of why these stereotypes are probably well-founded: to get them off of their land, the white people used machine guns and slaughtered countless Native Americans.
I'll dig into your argument a little deeper after work, but the first complaint is your use of defending "archetypes". It's irrelevant to the debate because A) every movie has them, and B) I've never argued for/against them. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is a great movie even if it is all just one huge (and epic) western archetype. It's what they did DIFFERENTLY with the archetype characters that was interesting.
Also I'm wondering if we should take this to the forum for easier readability?
.
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed