Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like "Avatar"?

[droowl]

I don't think criticizing Avatar, without criticizing the whole escapist, Hollywood, blockbuster, xyz-industry makes much sense.
Avatar is a Hollywood film, if it hadn't been Avatar it had been another movie that introduced this new, though unnecessary, gimmick called 3D cinema/television.

Also, a successful movie is not automatically a "good" movie.

Like Cracker Funk said, all Hollywood movies are moneymaking schemes. But do you think indie filmmakers are making their films JUST to make money? We make films because we like to, and the money we may get is just an added bonus. Well, at least thats me. There may be some indie filmmakers in it just for the money, but I'm here to preserve a beautiful art.

"Avatar" may have been beautiful, and the technology is, I have to admit, pretty cool stuff. But a movie can't be judged solely on whether its 3D or not.

 

[bhikkhu]

Like Cracker Funk said, all Hollywood movies are moneymaking schemes. But do you think indie filmmakers are making their films JUST to make money? We make films because we like to, and the money we may get is just an added bonus. Well, at least thats me. There may be some indie filmmakers in it just for the money, but I'm here to preserve a beautiful art.

"Avatar" may have been beautiful, and the technology is, I have to admit, pretty cool stuff. But a movie can't be judged solely on whether its 3D or not.

I agree with you!
my point was that I tend to believe that Avatar is not significantly worse than any other Hollywood film, that it has all the qualities and flaws of other financially successful movies (the qualities being the technical aspects), and that criticism should not end with but go beyond Avatar.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Like Cracker Funk said, all Hollywood movies are moneymaking schemes. But do you think indie filmmakers are making their films JUST to make money? We make films because we like to, and the money we may get is just an added bonus. Well, at least thats me. There may be some indie filmmakers in it just for the money, but I'm here to preserve a beautiful art.

"Avatar" may have been beautiful, and the technology is, I have to admit, pretty cool stuff. But a movie can't be judged solely on whether its 3D or not.

Of course, we are not making movies JUST to make money. Most of us won't make any money at all. More than anything, I want the satisfaction of knowing that people had fun watching my movie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the curse of the average filmmaker is that we crave external validation a little bit more than the average person.

Are you implying James Cameron isn't the same? You know he had a normal career? No training in film whatsoever. Then, he saw "Star Wars", and thought, "Man, that's would I should be doing." He quit his job, went all-in, started making shitty SFX-driven shorts, and the rest is history. Quite frankly, I find his story inspiring, and more of us should aspire to his success. I think it's crass and unfair to claim that Cameron is in this for JUST the money. He's a sci-fi nerd. Always has been. He made "Avatar" because it's a movie he would want to watch. And thank God he did, because most sci-fi is crap; it's pretty rare that us nerds really get a movie we can latch on to.

 

[Manchelli]

I was severely disappointed with it, and didn't enjoy it near as much as so many others somehow claim to. Not a terrible flick, but a combination of all the hype and the true product, it turned out shittier than I expected.

The message was very good. I'm not into total CGI, but I do see how people admire the new technology in that aspect (though I wasn't as blown away as I expected to be, which contributed). The script sucked, the dialogue sucked, the action was okay, it had a large feel, but that's only good sometimes. Some aspects were a bit overused, I got too used to the good aspects, so they lost their touch soon.

Out of 4 stars? 3. Maybe 2 & 1/2 depending on how much you expect from it.

It's not a bad movie, but a front-runner for Best Picture (which it rightfully lost)? No.

 

[bhikkhu]

Of course, we are not making movies JUST to make money. Most of us won't make any money at all. More than anything, I want the satisfaction of knowing that people had fun watching my movie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the curse of the average filmmaker is that we crave external validation a little bit more than the average person.

Are you implying James Cameron isn't the same? You know he had a normal career? No training in film whatsoever. Then, he saw "Star Wars", and thought, "Man, that's would I should be doing." He quit his job, went all-in, started making shitty SFX-driven shorts, and the rest is history. Quite frankly, I find his story inspiring, and more of us should aspire to his success. I think it's crass and unfair to claim that Cameron is in this for JUST the money. He's a sci-fi nerd. Always has been. He made "Avatar" because it's a movie he would want to watch. And thank God he did, because most sci-fi is crap; it's pretty rare that us nerds really get a movie we can latch on to.

I never doubted that Cameron loves his job, after all he's been in the business for many years now so it's highly unlikely that he hates making movies.
But what clash here, at least as far as I am concerned, are two "philosophies" of making films.
Wanting to entertain is one of them. If everything James Cameron wants is that the people who watch his movies have fun then he surely is a sophisticated director. And there are indeed people who argue in favour of escapism, J.R.R Tolkien being a famous example.
Personally, I am from another school of thought, as I believe that art is there to make people think about themselves, about life, etc. That art is there to make people deal with their own existence, the world and spirituality. From this point of view Cameron's films have to be regarded with a critical eye, but then again he's only one example of many.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I never doubted that Cameron loves his job, after all he's been in the business for many years now so it's highly unlikely that he hates making movies.
But what clash here, at least as far as I am concerned, are two "philosophies" of making films.
Wanting to entertain is one of them. If everything James Cameron wants is that the people who watch his movies have fun then he surely is a sophisticated director. And there are indeed people who argue in favour of escapism, J.R.R Tolkien being a famous example.
Personally, I am from another school of thought, as I believe that art is there to make people think about themselves, about life, etc. That art is there to make people deal with their own existence, the world and spirituality. From this point of view Cameron's films have to be regarded with a critical eye, but then again he's only one example of many.

Fair enough. I can agree with that argument, with only one caveat.

Why can't we have both? I think we can all agree that Hollywood is in the business of entertaining. It's called the "entertainment industry", for Cameron's sake. They are selling a couple hours of fun, rarely anything more.

That doesn't mean the deeper kind of movie you want to see isn't out there. It's just not really fair of you to expect Hollywood to make them, because that's not the kind of movie that people are spending money on.

Let me remind you which movie inspired Cameron to start making films, in the first place. You can't get any more fun/escapist than "Star Wars". Yeah, I think it's safe to say that Cameron primarily just wants his audience to have a good time.

 

[bhikkhu]

Fair enough. I can agree with that argument, with only one caveat.

Why can't we have both? I think we can all agree that Hollywood is in the business of entertaining. It's called the "entertainment industry", for Cameron's sake. They are selling a couple hours of fun, rarely anything more.

I mentioned in one of my posts before that the idea that a film can only be either entertaining or insightful (and thus boring) is a cliché. Even though, I have to admit that some directors of "insightful" films, especially Europeans tend to do that, often seem to feel urged to make the film as "unentertaining" as possible.
Apart from that I think that dealing with the questions that arose while watching an "insightful" film is "part of the experience" and I don't find that boring.

That doesn't mean the deeper kind of movie you want to see isn't out there. It's just not really fair of you to expect Hollywood to make them, because that's not the kind of movie that people are spending money on.

That's true. Some movies require a certain degree of knowledge about film to be fully appreciated, blockbusters don't, that's why they work for everybody - so, they're egalitarian in a way

 

[Cracker Funk]

Man, I thought I had found a way to agree to disagree, but I guess not.

I mentioned in one of my posts before that the idea that a film can only be either entertaining or insightful (and thus boring) is a cliché. Even though, I have to admit that some directors of "insightful" films, especially Europeans tend to do that, often seem to feel urged to make the film as "unentertaining" as possible.
Apart from that I think that dealing with the questions that arose while watching an "insightful" film is "part of the experience" and I don't find that boring.

I read your earlier post. I never said that fun and insightful are diametrically opposed. They can coexist, but it's pretty rare. By the way, we're starting to use some pretty vague terms. What does "insightul" mean, exactly?

Recently, I saw "Splice", and I like it a lot. I've spoken to a few other people who hated it. They weren't entertained. Personally, I really liked the re-telling of "Frankenstein". My brain was very active while watching "Splice". I found that to be very entertaining. For me, it was fun to wrap my brain around this concept, as it played out onscreen.

So, when you say "insightful", is it possible that this is just a niche form of ENTERTAINMENT? You find enjoyment in thinking about the human condition, and stuff, and thinking all deeply, so when a movie forces you to do that, you enjoy watching that movie. How is that any different than any other way that people are entertained by movies?

Who are you to say that your form of entertainment is any better than the masses? If a bunch of stoned kids have fun watching a Tarantino movie about a crazy guy who kills people with his car, who are you to say that that's an invalid form of filmmaking?

Furthermore, that makes me think about other artforms:

Personally, I am from another school of thought, as I believe that art is there to make people think about themselves, about life, etc. That art is there to make people deal with their own existence, the world and spirituality.

At this very moment, I'm listening to Stevie Wonder, "Sir Duke". You might not recognize the song, by name, but you sure as heck would recognize it if you heard it. The entire song is nothing but an ode to the joy of music. For the average listener, this song serves no purpose other than to make you wanna shake your booty and jump in joy, and it acheives that task, easily. I seriously doubt anybody would listen to this song and start thinking "about themselves, about life, etc.", as you demand art should do. Does that make Stevie Wonder, one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, any less artistic?

What about photo-journalism? Imagine that photographer who shot the photo of the Chinese dude staring down the tanks in Tiananmen square. Do you think that photographer was considering how this photo might force you to contemplate your life? I think it was probably closer to, "Holy shit, some crazy shit's going down. I need to take a picture of that!" Does that make it any less artistic?

Have you ever had a REALLY well-prepared meal? I'm talking gourmet, fine-dining. I happen to work in fine-dining. If you've never experienced it, I have to tell you, with absolute certainty, that the term "culinary arts" is not a misnomer. A good chef is artistic as anybody. Yet, as many true works of art I've seen pass under my nose (and occasionally into my mouth), I've never felt the urge to contemplate life as a result.

Okay, I confess to being long-whinded. My point is that your definition of art is narrow, and unfair to a whole lot of artists across the world who make art for nothing more than the enjoyment of the art. I do believe Cameron fits into this very wide category.

That's true. Some movies require a certain degree of knowledge about film to be fully appreciated, blockbusters don't, that's why they work for everybody - so, they're egalitarian in a way

That's lame. Sounds way too academic. If an intelligent well-educated film-novice can't enjoy a particular "insightful" film as much as an intelligent well-educated film-expert, that's a shitty movie. The human condition is universal. If a movie requires "a certain degree of knowledge about film" in order to force a viewer to think "about themselves, about life, etc.", that movie is doing a very poor job of communicating something which we all understand, innately.

 

[Cracker Funk]

On a sidenote -- anybody feel like shaking your booty, and jumping for joy? Turn your volume on full-blast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sIjSNTS7Fs

 

[bhikkhu]

I read your earlier post. I never said that fun and insightful are diametrically opposed. They can coexist, but it's pretty rare. By the way, we're starting to use some pretty vague terms. What does "insightul" mean, exactly?

Recently, I saw "Splice", and I like it a lot. I've spoken to a few other people who hated it. They weren't entertained. Personally, I really liked the re-telling of "Frankenstein". My brain was very active while watching "Splice". I found that to be very entertaining. For me, it was fun to wrap my brain around this concept, as it played out onscreen.

So, when you say "insightful", is it possible that this is just a niche form of ENTERTAINMENT? You find enjoyment in thinking about the human condition, and stuff, and thinking all deeply, so when a movie forces you to do that, you enjoy watching that movie. How is that any different than any other way that people are entertained by movies?

Who are you to say that your form of entertainment is any better than the masses? If a bunch of stoned kids have fun watching a Tarantino movie about a crazy guy who kills people with his car, who are you to say that that's an invalid form of filmmaking?

I never said it's an invalid form of film making, I simply said, and that's why I have to underline that this is MY point of view, that it is not the way I want it to be. As with all things there are numerous ways of doing it and no absolute truths.
Of course we're dealing with vague terms here, because we're talking about basic (philosophical) concepts behind filmmaking; what does a director want from the audience, and what does the audience take from the film? I used the term "insightful" because it had been used before in this thread, and didn't think of a more accurate term.

When I talk about entertainment I basically mean escapist entertainment, things that distract you for some time, just to leave you right where you were before the film started. Pieces of art, ideally, do not leave you after you watched them, but "haunt" you, in a way; not like a catchy tune that you can't get rid of, but like thoughts/questions that pop up in your mind.
The purpose of art is basically personal development, something films that have been created merely to entertain can't offer.
That's why movies that mainly exist to distract people from reality are under special circumstances also dangerous. In the 3rd Reich, other than in the USSR, the "entertainment"-movies were mostly apolitical; why? because those movies showed an idealized version of reality, they distracted people from how bad things actually were and that way also prevented them from dealing with their (political) situation themselves.
The thing is: there's nothing wrong with being "entertained" from time to time, as long as you're aware of the manipulative elements in movies, but I think that inconsiderate consumption is not a good thing.

Furthermore, that makes me think about other artforms:



At this very moment, I'm listening to Stevie Wonder, "Sir Duke". You might not recognize the song, by name, but you sure as heck would recognize it if you heard it. The entire song is nothing but an ode to the joy of music. For the average listener, this song serves no purpose other than to make you wanna shake your booty and jump in joy, and it acheives that task, easily. I seriously doubt anybody would listen to this song and start thinking "about themselves, about life, etc.", as you demand art should do. Does that make Stevie Wonder, one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, any less artistic?

What about photo-journalism? Imagine that photographer who shot the photo of the Chinese dude staring down the tanks in Tiananmen square. Do you think that photographer was considering how this photo might force you to contemplate your life? I think it was probably closer to, "Holy shit, some crazy shit's going down. I need to take a picture of that!" Does that make it any less artistic?

Have you ever had a REALLY well-prepared meal? I'm talking gourmet, fine-dining. I happen to work in fine-dining. If you've never experienced it, I have to tell you, with absolute certainty, that the term "culinary arts" is not a misnomer. A good chef is artistic as anybody. Yet, as many true works of art I've seen pass under my nose (and occasionally into my mouth), I've never felt the urge to contemplate life as a result.

Okay, I confess to being long-whinded. My point is that your definition of art is narrow, and unfair to a whole lot of artists across the world who make art for nothing more than the enjoyment of the art. I do believe Cameron fits into this very wide category.

There is a difference between art and craft. Just because something is "technically" perfect does not mean it's artistic. The English language is somehow limited here, as the terms "musician" and "artist" are most often used synonymously, which I'm afraid is a bit problematic.
Making music that "makes me want to shake my booty" is no problem for a well experienced musician, as the emotional responses to certain types of music (I'm lacking the technical terms here a bit) are well known; music psychology does nothing else but to explore exactly that.

As for the photo journalism, I would argue that the main point of journalism is to keep record of world affairs, and that the impact the picture of the person in front of the tank has is due to its political relevance.

Well, there's no art without purpose. If the chef of a fine meal does not ask any questions through it, then it is very unlikely you will find any answers.
Molecular gastronomy for example does indeed serve an artistic purpose, as it explores the nature of food itself, its structure, etc.

That's lame. Sounds way too academic. If an intelligent well-educated film-novice can't enjoy a particular "insightful" film as much as an intelligent well-educated film-expert, that's a shitty movie. The human condition is universal. If a movie requires "a certain degree of knowledge about film" in order to force a viewer to think "about themselves, about life, etc.", that movie is doing a very poor job of communicating something which we all understand, innately.

True. There are of course also "artistic" films of different quality, but the inability of an audience who is not "in the know" to appreciate such a movie is most often because they are used to escapist entertainment, which works through formulas. Or in short: if someone is used to other people doing work for him, he will be overstrained when he has to work himself.
To be more precise, I didn't mean that everyone needs to have a degree in psychology to understand certain types of films, I did not mean knowledge gained at school. The term "knowledge" was altogether a bad choice. But some films require a willingness to look deeper into the matter than others.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I never said it's an invalid form of film making, I simply said, and that's why I have to underline that this is MY point of view, that it is not the way I want it to be. As with all things there are numerous ways of doing it and no absolute truths.

At least we can agree on that.

When I talk about entertainment I basically mean escapist entertainment, things that distract you for some time, just to leave you right where you were before the film started. Pieces of art, ideally, do not leave you after you watched them, but "haunt" you, in a way; not like a catchy tune that you can't get rid of, but like thoughts/questions that pop up in your mind.

"Avatar" haunted me for months. Of course I recognize that for most people it's just a fun adventure, with really cool visuals, and for a few of you, it's boring, but there are a great number of people like myself for whom this movie has really struck a chord. You should be aware that the art that huants you doesn't haunt everybody. To each his own, right?

The purpose of art is basically personal development, something films that have been created merely to entertain can't offer.

I completely reject this entire notion. Nonsense. Art doesn't have a purpose. Art just is.

That's why movies that mainly exist to distract people from reality are under special circumstances also dangerous. In the 3rd Reich, other than in the USSR, the "entertainment"-movies were mostly apolitical; why? because those movies showed an idealized version of reality, they distracted people from how bad things actually were and that way also prevented them from dealing with their (political) situation themselves.

Okay, now you're just talking crazy. Seriously?! You're gonna compare modern Hollywood to 3rd Reich propoganda?! And I'm really not fond of your use of this word "distract". Dude, you watch too much conspiracy theory stuff. There is a pretty clear difference between distracting and entertaining.

There is a difference between art and craft. Just because something is "technically" perfect does not mean it's artistic. The English language is somehow limited here, as the terms "musician" and "artist" are most often used synonymously, which I'm afraid is a bit problematic.
Making music that "makes me want to shake my booty" is no problem for a well experienced musician, as the emotional responses to certain types of music (I'm lacking the technical terms here a bit) are well known; music psychology does nothing else but to explore exactly that.

You're obviously not a musician. Music is an art. People who make music are artists. This includes people who write music, and people who perform music (as well as many other forms of musicianship). If you can't recognize music as an artform, than I just don't want to continue this conversation with you anymore, because I would have absolutely no respect for your opinion.

Of course I recognize the difference between technical proficiency and artistic creativity. They often go hand-in-hand, but not always. There's that kid who can perfectly mimic Hendrix, but could never create anything on his own. He's technically proficient. Then, there's that other kid who can mimic Hendrix, not perfectly, but closely enough that you get the feeling, but there's something about his performance, something that's got real feeling. That kid is an artist. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm sorry music has passed you by.

I said I was listening to Stevie Wonder. Maybe you're not familiar. He's only one of the most celebrated musician's of our time. His songwriting is unparalleled. Please, for your own sake, give him a listen. You cannot simply dismiss his artistic abilities by saying it is "no problem for a well experienced musician". Wow.

And it is not the English language that is limited, but your use of it. No disrespect intended by this comment. English is your second-language, and you're so much more fluent in it than any of the number of languages that I speak just a tiny bit. I'm just saying it's not the language. It's your understanding of it that's wrong. Definition-wise, "musician" is not the same as "artist". Neither is "square" the same as "rectangle".

Except, a square is a rectangle. And a musician is an artist.

As for the photo journalism, I would argue that the main point of journalism is to keep record of world affairs, and that the impact the picture of the person in front of the tank has is due to its political relevance.

Sure, we can agree on the desired purpose of journalism. But are you trying to say that the photographer isn't an artist? That would be rather insulting to many friends of mine. Why do they spend so much time learning how to frame a shot, and all the more advanced photography stuff? If their purpose is merely to record, why not just send out some idiot into the field, who will point the camera directly at the subject, and press "click"?

Well, there's is no art without purpose. If the chef of a fine meal does not ask any questions with it, then it is very unlikely you will find any answers.
Molecular gastronomy for example does indeed serve an artistic purpose, as it explores the nature of food itself, its structure, etc.

You're seriously reaching. Molecular gastronomy is a science. I refuse to explain to you the difference between art and science. At least science has a purpose, and it's typically very defined. Art just is. Enjoy it.

I'm done with this. There's no talking to you.

 

[bhikkhu]

You're obviously not a musician. Music is an art. People who make music are artists. This includes people who write music, and people who perform music (as well as many other forms of musicianship). If you can't recognize music as an artform, than I just don't want to continue this conversation with you anymore, because I would have absolutely no respect for your opinion.

I won't go into every detail you said here, as discussing opinions is always a little delicate, but I have to point out that I did not intend to insult you in any way, if that's what I did, I'm sorry.
What I did was to tell my opinion on this topic and why I have this opinion.
I respect yours, but respect does not mean that I have to share your opinion.

Music is an artform. But not everyone making music is an artist, that's the point.
Just because something can be art doesn't mean that everything belonging somehow to that genre is automatically art.
And yes you're right I am not a musician, but I know a lot of musicians and all of them perceive themselves as exactly that, as musicians, not as artists, this includes the local punk band just as well as a girl studying Jazz.

And about the "conspiracy theory" stuff, i'm going to quote wikipedia:
"The main goal of the Nazi film policy was to promote escapism, which was designed to distract the population and to keep everybody in good spirits. The open propaganda was reserved for documentary films and newsreels. There are very few examples of German feature films from the Third Reich that deal with the NSDAP or with party organizations such as the Sturmabteilung, Hitler Youth or the National Labour Service. The propaganda films that refer directly to Nazi politics amounted to less than a sixth of the whole national film production, which mainly consisted of light entertainment films."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_cinema#Goals_of_the_Nazi_film_policy

 

[M1chae1]

I liked it a lot. Was it Blade Runner? Alien? Brazil? Shawshank? Heck no...it wasn't nearly as refined. But boy was it entertaining, and that's the point of going to the cinema.

People that complain about the 'story' annoy me. Did you know there are only a handful of plot devices out there, and they are constantly being redone...yet people hardly ever complain. But you get an incredibly hyped movie, that looks insanely stunning and in perfect 3D, and what do people do? Complain about the story...as if it's a glaring fault with the movie.

You know what? B.S.

The story may be similar to other movies (Dances with Wolves, etc), but give me a freakin' break...it was still well-written and entertaining. It blows my mind that people complain so much about the 'story' of Avatar. I think it did it's job quite well, and was the backbone of a highly entertaining movie. What more do you want?

Some movies are revolutionary with technique, some with lighting, some with sound, some with style...but rarely with story. Many different movies have different attributes...some shine in different aspect than others. Avatar shined in the visual department. It shined in the production department. It shined in the CG department. The 3D department. The new software and tools department. The list goes on and on. Did it shine in the story department? No...but it also wasn't some backyard movie script. You know some of you bashing the story have no clue how to write a good story. Your movies are just getting started, and they are so rough and amateur. Yet you can bash the story of Avatar?

Avatar was beautifully crafted...one of (if not *the*) most visually stunning CG movies out there. Hell...it's pretty high up there in regards to any genre.

Avatar was the first and only film (thus far) that really pulled me into the emotion of the CG actor...I felt like I was watching real humans act. It was pretty incredible.

Look...this movie was HIGHLY entertaining...it nailed so many marks and was revolutionary in several ways. It raised the bar for so many people--for the industry and for the audience. You want to complain about the story not being original enough for you? Fine...that's your call. I say get a clue.

I love this quote:

I think the whole 3D thing is a sad silly gimmick.

Silly gimmick? Are you shitting me? LIFE...with all due respect man...Avatar is the leading force...the revolution of 3D technology...they are the captain of the ship. Not a SINGLE movie nailed the 3D like Avatar did. And if you watch the movie, you'll see they don't use it as a gimmick...they don't throw a myriad 3d-style shots at you that suck just to showcase the 3d...every single shot looks bad ass...in 2d or 3d. Saying it's a gimmick is like saying using Morgan Freeman as a VO is a gimmick.

I think it's just depressing to think that so many people are so critical to Avatar. I lose faith in people's abilities to 1) think for themselves 2) comprehend talent and 3) relax and be entertained.

And I bet a lot of you who hated Avatar love Family Guy and South Park. Which I think--for the most part--is low brow drek. But Oooooo Avatar was simple and gimmicky...pshhh. What a load of crap.

And lastly...it's too bad some of you hated Avatar...because I LOVED your last feature.

ps. Yes we all have opinions. And I'm just voicing mine. Why am I being so harsh? Because the internet has spawned these armchair-critics who feel like they can tear apart a massive project...a labor of love...just because it wasn't 'their thing.'

 

[Blanc/Noir]

I have to agree to agree with bhikku on most of this. Most anything can be art. In my opinion, if you put emotion into it and try to suceed at what you are doing for a higher purpose and not self indulgence, that is what I would call art. Art is more of a living energy, the output result of art is more important than the input.

And I also believe art is made in order to take people away from their problems. The 3rd Reich did it and so is the Studios. But that doesn't mean their purposes are the same. the Reich did it for more sinister purposes, while Studios due it...well mainly for money.

 

[Zensteve]

I have no opinion on it, 'cos I haven't seen it.

Not payin' $18 for a ticket to see any film.

 

[M1chae1]

I have no opinion on it, 'cos I haven't seen it.

Not payin' $18 for a ticket to see any film.

I paid $12 to see it at the theater when it came out. Where are you watching this? Is it in IMAX only?

 

[Cracker Funk]

Music is an artform. But not everyone making music is an artist, that's the point.
Just because something can be art doesn't mean that everything belonging somehow to that genre is automatically art.
And yes you're right I am not a musician, but I know a lot of musicians and all of them perceive themselves as exactly that, as musicians, not as artists, this includes the local punk band just as well as a girl studying Jazz.

Well then, you and your friends have an interesting definition of "artist". If something is an artform, and somebody is active in that artform, isn't that person an artist? I don't quite get your logic. Think of art as an umbrella. Music is but one of an infinite types of art, all of which are under the same umbrella.

I'm a singer. I've sang in many different avenues. I've sang in musicals, I was lead singer in a wedding band, I sang chorale. In the musicals, and as frontman in a band, I'm encouraged to be as expressive as possible, to really let my creative juices flow, get into the moment, and give my performace some feeling. As a member of a choir, there's really not much room for creativity. I pretty much just have to do what I've been trained to do, follow the instructions of the director, and do my best to blend my sound with those around me.

So, by your logic, when I'm singing in a musical, I'm being artistic. Yet, when I'm singing in choral, I'm merely technically proficient? But that would be silly - you wouldn't actually argue that, would you? You wouldn't dare say that every member of every chorale and every orchestra is merely technically proficient. That would be quite offensive.

Let's say you've got three guitar players. The first, we'll call him John, is very technically proficient, but isn't very creative. The second, Mary, is also technically proficient, and is really quite creative. The third, Ted, is somewhere in-between.

So, by your rigid rules, Mary is the artist, and John is not -- he is only technically proficient. But what about Ted? How creative does someone have to be before they pass your artistic test? At what point do you cross that line from merely technically proficient to artistic?

The point I make is that this is not a black/white issue. With artistic creativity, there are shades of grey, and it is impossible to make any logical cut-off point between one and the other. John, after all, isn't a robot. He may not be very creative, but he's got at least a tiny bit of artistic abilities. Who are you to say that he's not an artist?

My main problem with your argument, bhikkhu, is your attempt to define art, to give it boundaries. That's the exact opposite of art. Art is undefineable. It has no limits.

If you ever have to ask the question -- "Is this art?" The answer is yes.

There. Sorry to go off on that tangent there. You may all continue bashing the greatest movie ever made.

That's right, I said it.

 

[Zensteve]

I paid $12 to see it at the theater when it came out. Where are you watching this? Is it in IMAX only?

Plain ol' AMC theater chain in SoCal. (2-D version was $12)

Alice was $18 (saw that with comp tickets). Shrek is $16, now.

I'm not going to look up IMAX prices here, 'cos I'm sure my wallet will explode.

 

[M1chae1]

Plain ol' AMC theater chain in SoCal. (2-D version was $12)

Alice was $18 (saw that with comp tickets). Shrek is $16, now.

I'm not going to look up IMAX prices here, 'cos I'm sure my wallet will explode.

Dude, that sucks. I wouldn't go to a movie for that either. Screw that. That's CA prices for 3D? Ouch. I hate this business sometimes.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Dude, that sucks. I wouldn't go to a movie for that either. Screw that. That's CA prices for 3D? Ouch. I hate this business sometimes.

That is rather steep, I will admit.

Then again, how much would it cost to play pool for three hours? How much would it cost to play video games for three hours? How much do tickets to a symphony cost? A play on Broadway? A ticket to an NBA game? A three-course meal?

By comparison, 18 bucks ain't bad for three hours of entertainment. Here we've got the best people in the biz, creating something that is an incredible acheivement, and you get to watch it in a way that simply can't be replicated on your home screen.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Zensteve. To each his own. I'm just saying that for me, it's money well-spent.