where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Anyone see it?
I saw it yesterday afternoon not knowing the Oscars were on last night. . .would have to say, pretty cool cinematography. . .
But reason for post, 3D!
It was trippy at first, but could you imagine Nikon coming out with a 3D filter effect for post processing? I think 3D is the next wave, for TV's and other stuff, really "enhances" the concept of bokeh. . .
Meh :^`
I agree with the reviewers who called it Pocahontas meets the Smurfs.
I'm not a fan of 3D because of those stupid glasses.
hehehe, and I loved the SFX, for me it's a big milestone in cinematography, although I agree that it was a combination of Last Samurai + Dances with Wolfs + Breavehart :)
+ Smurfs + GI Joe + Thundercats
I thought the 3D was amazing. I have yet to see it in IMAX yet but will soon. But i do agree, just like the last samurai haha. Right at the fight scene it was basic. You win first. Then the enemy drives you back. to the point where your about to lose and then BOOM! surprisingly... a mass army of animals saves the day and the good guys win. Its preditable in any movie like that.
If anyone saw the Animated film Battle for Terra, Avatar would look quite familiar.
I didn't see it myself until this weekend, I missed the IMAX 3d, but wanted to see it in #d before it left the theaters. I almost needed to close one eye when he was on the cliff falling over, the effect was pretty realistic. (I can get a little queasy with the FPS games)
My brother used the phrase Dances with Ewoks
Ferngully trumps all.
to be honest Im a bit freaked out about 3D TVs ... coz I can tell you that after 3D movie walking down the street seems a bit ...different
Im not sure if I will be able to drive after whole day of watching 3D crap...
They still show it in 3D? I need to catch it soon.
I'm with NikoDoby.
I saw it the weekend it came out (back in December some time). I loved it as did the kids. We are planning to see it at the Seattle Science Center in full IMAX 3D one of these days, but they keep selling out all the weekend shows a week or so in advance, so haven't been able to coordinate it yet.
As for the plot, yes, it is Ferngully on steroids and all the other combos that where listed. As I told my co-worker it is the classic boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back along with the classic battle scenes where all appear lost and many you have come to care about sacrifice themselves for the greater good, then a miracle occurs and pulls a victory out of the jaws of defeat. Of course that pretty much describes 90% of the movies that come out, so this one sparkles in the CGI people and that is what is all about...
I'm having an argue on another forum (which I can't link too because it's private and all) but I'd like to copy paste some parts of it as I think it's a good discussion subject.
My first post, it started when someone claimed it was art.
girlnothing wrote:
art.
WHAT? how can you call "art" a multi million production that was only made to make several more millions. How can anyone take you seriously after saying such thing?
==============================
Some Guy:
How can you possibly know that was the prime motivation?
==============================
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/companycredits
These company NEVER EVER invested a single cent in art and they never will. (Please note that I'm not saying that this is bad, I'm neutral on the subject, any company has the right to make a product in order to get a monetary profit out of it, it's what most do and I understand why.)
Here's a quote that I love:
"We have no obligation to make history.
We have no obligation to make art. We
have no obligation to make a statement. To
make money is our only objective."
-- Michael Eisner, CEO, The Walt Disney Company, wrote
in a memo sent during his previous position at Paramount.
http://www.pennyfarthinginvestment.com/newsletter/Derailleur2004SeptemberProxy.pdf
The Big Six (majors) all think alike, no need to be a genius to see what's going on there.
==============================
BadOranges:
Did Michael Eisner foot the bill for this production ? Avatar was a huge endeavour and I don't understand how you can't see some artistic merits. Was it made to make money ? Well it certainly wasn't made to loose money. They probably could of cut corners but they didn't. They took a big risk and it paid off. As a cohesive art piece , ya not much there but the visuals are absolutely stunning. Wouldn't you at least call that an artistic breakthru?
==============================
BadOranges wrote:
Did Michael Eisner foot the bill for this production?
No, my point is that the Big Six all have a common goal, Fox acts exactly like disney would.
BadOranges wrote:
Avatar was a huge endeavour and I don't understand how you can't see some artistic merits.
Because there's none.
BadOranges wrote:
Was it made to make money ? Well it certainly wasn't made to loose money.
You're right, it was made to make money, lots of money. Is it a bad thing? No.
BadOranges wrote:
They probably could of cut corners but they didn't. They took a big risk and it paid off.
They took no risk at all. Hollywood doesn't take risks that are this big, when you hire James Cameron, you are not taking a risk, you're investing money. When Hollywood take a risk, you don't even hear about it unless it's a success... when they fail, they lose a little money but they act like poker players, they risk when the odds are in their favor... on smaller budget releases that often end up as "straight to dvd" features.
BadOranges wrote:
As a cohesive art piece , ya not much there but the visuals are absolutely stunning. Wouldn't you at least call that an artistic breakthru?
Seeing a space shuttle leaving earth for the first time was absolutely stunning.
Was it an artistic breakthrough?
No, it was not.
I'd like to add that I wouldn't qualify Avatar as "absolutely stunning" anyway... but even if it was, it wouldn't be a piece of art.
==============================
BadOranges:
I didn't ask any questions that weren't rhetorical. So I suppose the music playing isn't art. I suppose the pictures however the fuck they did them isn't art. You might argue that it is bad art but it is none the less art. The concept isn't that hard to grasp. Just like your ranting is idiotic, it is still an opinion. The fact that it is a lousy one doesn't make it any less of an opinion.
I am not defending the movie. It sucked. But sucky art is still art.
==============================
Establishing a definition of art is not an easy task indeed but it has nothing to do with your attempts to throw personal attacks at me, that was completely inappropriate.
While I think Avatar was not stunning, I never said Avatar was "sucky" I did not really like it, but it's definitely not "sucky". Avatar is just another Hollywood product: high production value, well timed story telling (time it, you'll see, most Hollywoodian movies are sooooo well made on this aspect, everything fits perfectly in the schedule that is the total length of the event) They also shine when it comes to organisation... Coordinating all these people into a single project, that's another strength of Hollywoodian productions.
There are art pieces where the initial motivation of the artist was to create art from the start.
There are sucky art pieces where the initial motivation of the artist was to create art.
Then, there is entertainment where the initial motivation of the company was to make a few more million dollars.
Calling avatar "art" is like claiming that Nick Carter (yes, THAT guy) is a contemporary artist while he clearly is a tool. Bad example, but I've seen worse.. plus, I like to refer to someone who's already "has been" at 30... I think it reflects today's society very well.
==============================
Some random useless posts here, I won't waste my time copy pasting these.
==============================
Alkazar:
Is that really how it works?
Are you suggesting that James Cameron, the writer and director of the movie, was hired by the production company?
Are you suggesting that the production company conceived the whole project solely for the purpose of making a profit and then hired a writer to make it a reality?
Maybe I'm naive, but I would have thought that, as writer and director, it would be James Cameron who provided the motivation for the creation and production of Avatar, and from what I can see, he doesn't seem to be motivated by profit. Whatever we may think about the film, it appears to me that Cameron considers the Avatar story to be an important message that reflects his personal ideology of which he is passionate.
I can imagine that all the production companies who then got involved did so purely for financial reasons but that doesn't mean the production of the film was motivated by their lust for profit.
==============================
ohyeah wrote:
i bet you there is a market in selling avatar condoms and avatar dildos...lol
Of course there is, but I think it's too small so we won't see these items.
Alkazar wrote:
JBLanteigne wrote:
Hollywood doesn't take risks that are this big, when you hire James Cameron, you are not taking a risk,
Is that really how it works?
Are you suggesting that James Cameron, the writer and director of the movie, was hired by the production company?
Are you suggesting that the production company conceived the whole project solely for the purpose of making a profit and then hired a writer to make it a reality?
Most of the time, writers (or writer's agents or simple people who own the writes to stories after buying them or something) try to sell these to big studios... The big studios then hire a producer who will make sure everything goes fine with the studio's investment, that's why movies like Blade Runner were so screwed up and are so much different from the initial ideas that were in the writer's and director's mind. The producer is usually the bad guy. He's the one who thought something similar to this: hey, star wars was a sci-fi movie with Harrison Ford and it worked, let's do this, I want Harrison Ford. Producers and the studio owners are those responsible for all the cheesiness you find in most of their creations, they have to turn the writer's story which is probably initially good, into something that follow the Hollywoodian ideology. The director's ideas are also often modified during post production.. that's what happened to Blade Runner also.. and Brazil, lots of movies suffered from that, and that's why soooo many writers are very angry when they see "their" movie.
That's the way it goes most of the time.. however when you see a movie where the same person writes, producer and direct... it means this person proved to know how to make a blockbuster, the studio is then safe. James Cameron is not a moron he won't produce a piece of art and then hope the studio is satisfied with it... he's following very common rules... Visually, you are pretty free, the story can take pretty much any setting unless the story treats the bad guys as the American themselves.. I don't think there's a single American flag in Avatar... while there are usually several American flags in the usual Hollywood Blockbuster.. Unless the flag would be completely random of course, they are not as low as Canadians where Canadian content are often obligated in several television program, such content can be the Canadian flag or a moose, a mounted police or a beaver (NOT KIDDING, hilarious isn't it?) Well, it's a bit the same in Hollywoodian movie except for some reason I feel that it's less ridicule.. maybe it's because we're so used to see these American symbols... and since the government doesn't finance the tv or cinema productions, it doesn't have a word to say, that's different in Canada... (This financing has its bad sides too.) Back to topic, other Hollywoodian ideologies include the self-made man, the common man, the happy end, good vs evil, etc.. there are several more of these.
Sometimes, some movie are simply never released... or some are going straight to dvd... Hollywood just doesn't care because they actually make more movie than what is going to be released, this is a good way to flood the market to make sure as little international features get into theatres. For the Big Six, the ideal number would obviously be zero. All that to say that they simply make sure their mistakes have the less impact as possible: they could stop the film while it's in production and best of all, they invest much, much less in advertisement.
Now, my next point: advertisement. Since Jaws, advertisement and distribution is the priority in ANY big Hollywoodian releases. That's because of the way the studios and distributors make their money. When a movie is released, for the first week or first two weeks, 95% (or so) of the profits on the theater tickets go to the studios and distributors, numbers probably vary based on contracts, but it's always like this... and yes, that's why the popcorn is so damn expensive and that's why in the best theaters you probably walk in front of a series of snack kiosks before reaching your projection room... it's not malicious, it's called capitalism. After the first or two first weeks, the share of profit is more in favour of the theaters. What does this mean? It means the Big Six make all their money right when the movie is announced, before the critics, before the reviews, before the forums, so what do the customers have to based their choice of either going to see the movie? (here I refer to those who go see the movie in the first 2 weeks, if you wait 1 month it's not the same story, obviously) You have a preview of the cast (which is a form of publicity because of the big names they use) you have the trailer (some more advertisement) and you have the ads.. That's why the biggest chuck of the budget of every single "big" Hollywoodian movies since Jaws, including Avatar, were spent on advertisement. It's also not a random fact that they are always released on the same date in every part of the country... it's too create the event. Also you don't want to spoil how shitty your product was in some place so people can spread the word...
Unfortunately, most Hollywoodian features were concieved and released with the single idea to make money out of it... if this means recreating an artist's story without modifying it at all, they will do it... if to make money it meant to feature some artists's real art without even being in the production process, they would friggen do it... they are not "evil" companies, they are just there for the profit and unfortunately, by definition it means you have to kill anything "art" in it. All's left is their storyline based on classic ideologies and some technologically oriented eye candy. If there's a coupable for screwing up so many ideas, it's the mass. Yes I'm acting like an elistist here and I'm trying really hard not too, but when I see what the mass likes and wants, it's impossible to lower myself to that level, sorry. (not referring to avatar here, which IMO was a bit over the average, due to an actual progress, in the visual department.. which is in no way related to art, since when does using high tech toys make you an artist? I just wish it wasn't that cliché and that there actually was a storyline over those goliath robots and giant smurfs)
I hope I answered a few questions you had on the making and distribution of Hollywoodian products.
Others that I did not quote either didn't offer potential discussion material such as some explanation of their ideas, or just don't know what they are talking about.
A square is a rectangle but not every rectangles are squares.
Art can use technologically advanced medias but not every technologically advanced productions are art.
==============================
I really do not understand how can someone see such product as art... but since some people do, I think it makes a great debate, what do you guys think? Is Avatar, art?
My girlfriend called it "Dances with wolves in space with a happy ending".
So there's that.
"Hollywood doesn't take risks that are this big, when you hire James Cameron, you are not taking a risk"
Ha you guys have never seen Piranha 2 have you?!
There is always Art in making a movie... But it gets so watered down bu the time the concept reaches the final product it is not art anymore but a technical craft...
You must log in to post.
