Official Film Discussion and Last Movie You Watched

[dilatedmuscle]

^^ its currently not 5-10 years from now... i remember how amazing some video games looked in the original playstation that look like crap now... but when they were first shown they were impressive and applauded.

When the iphone came out it was amazing and its slowly losing popularity, 5-10 years from now, nobody will care about it but does that mean we cant appreciate it here and now?

 

[tim290280]

^^ its currently not 5-10 years from now... i remember how amazing some video games looked in the original playstation that look like crap now... but when they were first shown they were impressive and applauded.

When the iphone came out it was amazing and its slowly losing popularity, 5-10 years from now, nobody will care about it but does that mean we cant appreciate it here and now?

You have missed my point completely.

The film is not any good. Special effects are not special and are not the basis of a good film. They can be a part of a good film (T2, Star Wars - originals) but they can't be the basis of it (who remembers the Final Fantasy movie???).

My point is that you are being wowed by frivolity rather than quality. You see it as spectacular but that is only because it is new. This means you are not appreciating the full spectrum presented but rather the simplistic and shallow levels of entertainment. If you want to be wowed why not just go and see real life: it will be so realistic and visceral and the images will just jump right up in front of you. If they need to be blue people then take some paint.

A great example of my point is the Final Fantasy:Spirits Within film. It was applauded for its realistic animation and amazing effects. The movie sucked donkey ballz though and didn't have the marketing hype of a major studio behind it (bankrupted its studio actually).

The Spirits Within debuted to mixed critical reception, but received praise for the realism of the computer-animated characters. The film only grossed $85 million on a $137 million budget, and is blamed for the demise of its studio, Square Pictures. It has been called a box office bomb.

If everyone had been told that this was amazing and had the best special effects ever seen and was a spectacle to behold I bet it would have done better. Movie still would have sucked and would rightly have disappeared from social conciousness.

My point really is that if you get caught up in the shallow and simplistic you cannot ever really enjoy things (movies, art, literature, music, life) to the uttmost. I'm not saying don't watch the film, I'm saying stop telling people this is such a great film because it looks pretty.

 

[ironheart]

Mystic River - very good movie. kept me on my toes the whole time. very good perfomancens by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins.

 

[Ryeland]

You have missed my point completely.

The film is not any good. Special effects are not special and are not the basis of a good film. They can be a part of a good film (T2, Star Wars - originals) but they can't be the basis of it (who remembers the Final Fantasy movie???).

My point is that you are being wowed by frivolity rather than quality. You see it as spectacular but that is only because it is new. This means you are not appreciating the full spectrum presented but rather the simplistic and shallow levels of entertainment. If you want to be wowed why not just go and see real life: it will be so realistic and visceral and the images will just jump right up in front of you. If they need to be blue people then take some paint.

A great example of my point is the Final Fantasy:Spirits Within film. It was applauded for its realistic animation and amazing effects. The movie sucked donkey ballz though and didn't have the marketing hype of a major studio behind it (bankrupted its studio actually).

If everyone had been told that this was amazing and had the best special effects ever seen and was a spectacle to behold I bet it would have done better. Movie still would have sucked and would rightly have disappeared from social conciousness.

My point really is that if you get caught up in the shallow and simplistic you cannot ever really enjoy things (movies, art, literature, music, life) to the uttmost. I'm not saying don't watch the film, I'm saying stop telling people this is such a great film because it looks pretty.

I am not being wowed by frivolity. I am being wowed that avatar is the first movie to bring 3d to the mainstream. This is as monumental as the first mainstream talking movie.

Through sheer force of will James Cameron created a technology that will be used in some amazing ways in the future, especially when attached to a good plot.

In this movie Cameron used the technology to create some feelings that had never really been done before. Looking over the edge of a cliff and feeling how far down it was, feeling what it was like to be flying.

The movies that use the technologies based off of what was done for avatar will be standing on the shoulders of giants, and the giants need to be recognized. This movie should not win best picture, as it wasn't. Does Cameron deserve best director for finding a way to get people back in theatres while simultaneously pushing film technology forward again? Possibility.

Will the plot of this movie and its technology appear dated later on? Certainly. Will that take away from its reception years from now? Certainly. Does that mean at this time this movie is not a critical force in shaping the way movies will be made in the future? No.

Personally I find the plot of Star Wars to be lackluster. What drove that movie to phenomenal success was the creation of an endearing universe where the audience could escape to. Thats what Cameron did with avatar. Created a universe of fantasy and wonder. Much like what Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings (though he had some of the best source material of all time to work with).

My appreciation of this film is based on the world created, and the technical prowess it took to make it. The story isn't all that moving to me. I have never said it was a great movie. I said it did some great things.

Telling me how I should enjoy art or music or life is a bit beyond your range of knowledge. Just because I enjoy and find beauty in the technical things in life doesn't make that sense of awe any less profound then that of a music aficionado. I agree that one must look past the appearance of things to get to their full beauty and must subject them to careful study in order to truly appreciate them in their entirety. I look at what I watch, read and live just as intently as you do, just because we appreciate different things about different subjects doesn't make our opinions of what is beautiful and relevant any less equal.

 

[Ryeland]

Mystic River - very good movie. kept me on my toes the whole time. very good perfomancens by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins.

I also really enjoyed mystic river.

 

[Skeptic]

Invictus - 9/10 - Very inspirational movie. It's hard to imagine that much of what they created through the movie is actually happening in SA though.

 

[tim290280]

Dude you've largely agreed with me, just a slighty different take on the merits of what Cameron has done. So I agree with a lot of your points about turning points and the like. I'll make a couple of comments below.

I am not being wowed by frivolity. I am being wowed that avatar is the first movie to bring 3d to the mainstream. This is as monumental as the first mainstream talking movie.

And the first talkie was??? I know easy point to make that it is hard to remember the specific turning point films.

Through sheer force of will James Cameron created a technology that will be used in some amazing ways in the future, especially when attached to a good plot.

Story of Cameron's career. Hearing the other side from the studio when he went massively over budget on Titanic was interesting.

In this movie Cameron used the technology to create some feelings that had never really been done before. Looking over the edge of a cliff and feeling how far down it was, feeling what it was like to be flying.

The movies that use the technologies based off of what was done for avatar will be standing on the shoulders of giants, and the giants need to be recognized. This movie should not win best picture, as it wasn't. Does Cameron deserve best director for finding a way to get people back in theatres while simultaneously pushing film technology forward again? Possibility.

Will the plot of this movie and its technology appear dated later on? Certainly. Will that take away from its reception years from now? Certainly. Does that mean at this time this movie is not a critical force in shaping the way movies will be made in the future? No.

Largely agree. I'm not saying that advancing technology is a bad thing, just not something we should be pretending is anything other than that. The other comments made in this thread would have you believe that this is the best movie ever. My point is, as yours appears to be, that this is a turning point in technology.

Personally I find the plot of Star Wars to be lackluster. What drove that movie to phenomenal success was the creation of an endearing universe where the audience could escape to. Thats what Cameron did with avatar. Created a universe of fantasy and wonder. Much like what Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings (though he had some of the best source material of all time to work with).

I agree that Star Wars was woodenly acted (except Ford who carried the trilogy) and a fairly average plot. But it combined everything together to create a series of films that is still talked about 30 years later and were so good someone thought they had license to try to recapture that magic and failed miserably (even with the showy special effects and stunts).

My appreciation of this film is based on the world created, and the technical prowess it took to make it. The story isn't all that moving to me. I have never said it was a great movie. I said it did some great things.

Same page. I personally think this may herald enough enthusiasm in technology that we will have people trying to make 3D stand in theatres. This would be where you are literally surrounded by the movie as though really there. Now that would be cool.

Telling me how I should enjoy art or music or life is a bit beyond your range of knowledge. Just because I enjoy and find beauty in the technical things in life doesn't make that sense of awe any less profound then that of a music aficionado. I agree that one must look past the appearance of things to get to their full beauty and must subject them to careful study in order to truly appreciate them in their entirety. I look at what I watch, read and live just as intently as you do, just because we appreciate different things about different subjects doesn't make our opinions of what is beautiful and relevant any less equal.

True. I did step over the line. But by the same token I hate it when people rave about something that is merely the shallow casing.

 

[tim290280]

Deer Hunter

My first comment is that this film is long. Really long. Halfway in and I was already thinking about how I could have edited this film down while still capturing the essence.

Don't get me wrong, great film and DeNiro is fantastic, as is Walken. Although I find it interesting the way it played out, Mike being the strong character was still not really coping, just more able to keep going. Fairly typical of a lot of my grandad's generation.

 

[dilatedmuscle]

You have missed my point completely.

The film is not any good. Special effects are not special and are not the basis of a good film. They can be a part of a good film (T2, Star Wars - originals) but they can't be the basis of it (who remembers the Final Fantasy movie???).

ok...

The basic nature of a film is to entertain.... how many people have insinuated in this board that it was entertaining and they watched it or wanted to watch it multiple times? If the film entertained people then why does it matter to you that people are applauding it?

I dont think Final Fantasy is a good example because i dont know anybody who thought the film was entertaining.

 

[Ryeland]

Dude you've largely agreed with me, just a slighty different take on the merits of what Cameron has done. So I agree with a lot of your points about turning points and the like. I'll make a couple of comments below.

True, as is usually the case between us.

And the first talkie was??? I know easy point to make that it is hard to remember the specific turning point films.

The Jazz Singer, may not be remembered now, but that doesn't make it any less revolutionary and pivotal. Just in the same way that many people may not remember the significance of the treaty of Versailles on world history doesn't make it any less important.

Story of Cameron's career. Hearing the other side from the studio when he went massively over budget on Titanic was interesting.

That is an interesting story. His bets always seem to pay off huge though.

Largely agree. I'm not saying that advancing technology is a bad thing, just not something we should be pretending is anything other than that. The other comments made in this thread would have you believe that this is the best movie ever. My point is, as yours appears to be, that this is a turning point in technology.

This is true, but this is a new tool for more adventurous filmmakers, and its creator needs to be recognized.

I agree that Star Wars was woodenly acted (except Ford who carried the trilogy) and a fairly average plot. But it combined everything together to create a series of films that is still talked about 30 years later and were so good someone thought they had license to try to recapture that magic and failed miserably (even with the showy special effects and stunts).

Very true, I think at this point a sequel to Avatar is a given. I think the world created has the possibility for some awesome stories to be told. But time will tell. For what its worth, I though Zoe Saldana, who played Netyri did an excellent job.

Same page. I personally think this may herald enough enthusiasm in technology that we will have people trying to make 3D stand in theatres. This would be where you are literally surrounded by the movie as though really there. Now that would be cool.

Oh man, I saw it in IMAX the other day. The sound was so good. When explosions when off you could feel them in their correct positions. The 3d was amazing too. Holographic projection is an awesome idea and I can't wait till its a reality.

True. I did step over the line. But by the same token I hate it when people rave about something that is merely the shallow casing.

I agree with you that something should not be praised merely for its looks. But in the case of this movie there was so much technical innovation and good old creativity behind making those looks I think they deserve some recognition. Like I said, it was a great experience, not a great movie. But creating a great experience I guess is the goal of a movie.

 

[Line]

Was the iPhone compared to art?

 

[Ryeland]

Was the iPhone compared to art?

Depends on your definition of art. The iPhone could be called art in its carefully balanced compromise between form and function. I view automobile design and engineering as art. The sound of properly tuned high performance engine is more moving to me than a symphony.

 

[Skeptic]

Depends on your definition of art. The iPhone could be called art in its carefully balanced compromise between form and function. I view automobile design and engineering as art. The sound of properly tuned high performance engine is more moving to me than a symphony.

A symphony is a greater artform though lol.

 

[tim290280]

I should point out that living in rural Australia I'm yet to see this film. I do intend to see it, but I have not been impressed with any comments I have heard thus far, nor by any of the trailers for the film.

The basic nature of a film is to entertain.... how many people have insinuated in this board that it was entertaining and they watched it or wanted to watch it multiple times? If the film entertained people then why does it matter to you that people are applauding it?

This statement means you are ignorning, dismissing or missing my point again. To be entertained by the merely superficial or technical aspects of a movie has little merit. Why? Because there is no depth, or quality to which can be attached anything substantial. As a result the "visually stunning" film fades into nothingness as it isn't memorable when it is quickly succeeded. Everyone was wowed by "bullet time" in The Matrix, yet I had seen at least two films do something similar prior (Blade and a Hong Kong martial arts film which I am sure was the inspiration for the 360 degree shot). There have been many to use this technique since. The Matrix is still remembered though as it was actually a decent film that wasn't just a couple of amazing bits of CGI and camera work.

It matters to me because this is the excessive height of popcorn cinema. Now I can watch a big, loud, explosion filled popcorn flick with the best of them. I won't be lauding it as the greatest film or any such nonsense. Was I entertained, yes, but I am unlikely to walk away with any long lasting memory of the film, nor is it likely to be entertaining again later.

I dont think Final Fantasy is a good example because i dont know anybody who thought the film was entertaining.

Plenty of people were entertained by the visual stunningness of it. It was an extreme example of my point.

If I want a visually stunning film I look to things like Hero or House of Flying Daggers, which were amazingly vibrant and stunning. But they not only combined the visuals with a great story and acting, but also made a film that still impresses many years later. Although I have to say I was disappointed with the very Chinese ending to Hero, I'm too Western to appreciate that sort of ending.

 

[Ryeland]

A symphony is a greater artform though lol.

Why?

 

[tim290280]

Why?

Engine by its very nature creates noise.

Symphony by its nature and construction produces music, sound, whatever the writer entails for it. By this nature it is one of the true artforms, as its dynamics are both complex, yet simple, bombass, yet elegant, there are few artforms that can compare to a crafted symphony.

 

[Ryeland]

Engine by its very nature creates noise.

Symphony by its nature and construction produces music, sound, whatever the writer entails for it. By this nature it is one of the true artforms, as its dynamics are both complex, yet simple, bombass, yet elegant, there are few artforms that can compare to a crafted symphony.

To your ears an engine is noise. To my ears I hear pistons firing the exact right air to fuel ratio at the exact right time, I hear resonant tuning in the exhaust system. I hear a properly tuned turbo-charger or supercharger. The whirring of well placed and well designed gears is also a wonderful thing.

The engine embodies all the same dynamics you speak of. The principles of its operation are simple, but their coming together to produce a truly functional and beautiful system is an incredibly complex process. Designing an engine that functions well is nothing short of an act of artistry. It requires balancing the right quantities, levels and rhythms perfectly. The simple act of timing an engine correctly requires as much skill, patience and creativity as creating a writing a piece of music.

I love music, and an orchestra is something beautiful to listen too. The complexity of all those musicians working together to bring a piece of music to life is something most people appreciate. However to your point of engines producing noise, so do instruments, that is their primary function. It is not the noise itself that is important, but what you do with it. Music is just one form of expression and one form of art. Everyone's definition of what art is is different and equally valid. I would argue that to create some of the worlds greatest engines took the same amount of effort, skill, insight, creativity and artistry as it took for Bach or Beethoven to write some of their masterpieces.

It is quite possible for "technical achievements" to be considered art.

 

[Zigurd]

Art, can be anything. What art is for a person, could be something completely atrocious for another.

Its a matter of perspective, context and taste.

I see atomic blast waves as art. I also see flowers as natures art. Etc...

TL;DR: Art is subjective, suck my cock I am a shark.

 

[Skeptic]

To your ears an engine is noise. To my ears I hear pistons firing the exact right air to fuel ratio at the exact right time, I hear resonant tuning in the exhaust system. I hear a properly tuned turbo-charger or supercharger. The whirring of well placed and well designed gears is also a wonderful thing.

The engine embodies all the same dynamics you speak of. The principles of its operation are simple, but their coming together to produce a truly functional and beautiful system is an incredibly complex process. Designing an engine that functions well is nothing short of an act of artistry. It requires balancing the right quantities, levels and rhythms perfectly. The simple act of timing an engine correctly requires as much skill, patience and creativity as creating a writing a piece of music.

I love music, and an orchestra is something beautiful to listen too. The complexity of all those musicians working together to bring a piece of music to life is something most people appreciate. However to your point of engines producing noise, so do instruments, that is their primary function. It is not the noise itself that is important, but what you do with it. Music is just one form of expression and one form of art. Everyone's definition of what art is is different and equally valid. I would argue that to create some of the worlds greatest engines took the same amount of effort, skill, insight, creativity and artistry as it took for Bach or Beethoven to write some of their masterpieces.

It is quite possible for "technical achievements" to be considered art.

This ...

Art, can be anything. What art is for a person, could be something completely atrocious for another.

Its a matter of perspective, context and taste.

I see atomic blast waves as art. I also see flowers as natures art. Etc...

TL;DR: Art is subjective, suck my cock I am a shark.

I was just being facetious Ryeland

 

[Line]

Depends on your definition of art. The iPhone could be called art in its carefully balanced compromise between form and function. I view automobile design and engineering as art. The sound of properly tuned high performance engine is more moving to me than a symphony.

Words have multiple definitions and applications, yes. That said, cross-comparing them or reducing film to technological innovation isn't really helpful, though that's not to say that Avatar is merely a technological innovation or that the definition of art isn't variable. Some of the comparisons here are silly though.