@aluraacker345 i am looking forward to Captain Marvel
Avatar (movie): Your thoughts…
-
What is objectivity in art? I am under the impression that all art is subjective. Art, is an individual creation and is one of the most polarizing mediums of communication/expression, because not eveyone’s brain likes the same thing. It can be interpreted objectively, on the surface, based on general consensus, but if you do not care for the work you cannot delve in and explain to others how great it is. Every aspect of a movie is interpreted from the perspective of the reviewer. People don’t always agree. Yeah, Picasso was a great, revolutionary artist, but I cannot say that his works are good when I can find nothing appealing about them.
If I want a good review (from my perspective) I find someone I know who likes the same kinds of films I do and see what they say. I trust their opinion far more than any professional critic. I have always tended to see movie critics in the newspapers and online as putting forth their opinion, their take on the movie anyway. So I always take their review with a grain of salt. Sometimes I really agree with what they have written (after seeing the movie)… sometimes I totally disagree.
In my honest opinion, with all my personal feelings and stances: I found Avatar to be a horrible film. Yes, that is based on my political views, personal preferences etc…
In my objective opinion: Avatar was a poor film. This is based on a non-political, strictly plot-story-intrigue-quality mindset. This view is influenced by embedded, personal ideas about what a movie should be like… But I believe that quality, engagment, creativity and the ability to inspire are pretty objective qualities that people think are all in a “good movie”.
I can seperate the two, but for an overall view I combine them. In the case of Avatar, poor + horrible = pretty bad. That is my review. As for reasons, I have listed some, but when people want to know what I thought of a movie, I give them both aspects; my honest and objective opinions.
I am afraid, that I do not catch some of your references, Frimmel: Is JJ Trek = Star trek (JJ Abrams)? I have no idea what STINO is.
I saw Robin Hood and IJ: Crystal Skull… neither of which stood out as very good overall. But they were not very bad films either. Sort of mediocre.
-
STINO is Star Trek In Name Only referring to the JJ Abrams directed film from 2009 aka JJ Trek. Pretty much the first time I’ve ever gone, “Did anyone watch the same movie I did?” We disagree on Avatar but we don’t appear to have ‘seen’ two entirely different movies, we see the same moral and so forth but were affected differently. In STINO I keep hearing about how true to the original Uhura the 2009 version is and I don’t understand how the characters can even be considered similar.
Yeah, Picasso was a great, revolutionary artist, but I cannot say that his works are good when I can find nothing appealing about them.
Look I’m probably in over my head trying to answer questions about objectivity in art which at best is I’ll grant a fluid concept. But objectivity in the sense I mean is separating how it makes you feel from how it might make others feel. I mean it in the sense of how well it conforms to conventional forms of structure or departs from convention in ways that set the work apart.
If your sentence had been “Yeah, Picasso was a great, revolutionary artist, but I cannot say that his works are appealing to me.” I would say you see my point. Since you use your internal reaction “…I cannot say that his works are good…” to dismiss the outside reaction “great, revolutionary” I tend to think you do not.
I sense a set of shifting standards on the part of both professional critics and movie goers. I sense a growing lack of ability to intellectualize and to see narrative structure and narrative elements beyond the viewer’s reactions to them. I sense a shift to giving precedence to internal standards and personal reactions which often extends to the point of denying that there can even be external standards.
To bring this back to STINO I can clearly see how and why folks might like the film and why they may have enjoyed themselves. However I can not see how anyone can claim it is ‘good.’ While on the one hand it is terrific that most everyone had fun, it is appalling that so few saw thru the style and recognized the utter lack of substance.
-
I do understand what you are saying, and I agree with you. No "but"s or exceptions here.
When talking of Picasso, I did reference myself via my internal reaction to illustrate my point. That point being: I can recognize Picasso’s achievement, status, creativity and influence… but I would be seriously ill-advised to examine or “review” his paintings, because my internal reaction would show through whatever objectivity I was supposed to have… if I were presenting some sort of review. Being objective about something that is suppose to cause a reaction in you is very difficult. And I cannot be other than who I am. Though, this does not mean I cannot quell a crusade long enough to let someone else form their own opinion.
As for narrative/literary/cinematic structure, and people not intellectualizing these days… I would say you are right. I do not read enough reviews to know as well as you would, but I find that people I talk to more, often than not, present their personal opinion of the movie and little if anything about its cinematic quality or the possibility for someone else to like the movie. When someone asks me how a movie was, I start off by giving a short, good-bad-ok-not very good statement. I give the movie as much brief positive credit I can. Then if the person wants to hear more, I will give more. So, I try to be open about it, “Yeah I didn’t like it, but maybe you will…” I don’t like how polarized some people are when presenting their thoughts to someone who hasn’t seen a movie. My approach is to give them the facts, let them watch it and discuss it afterwards.
STINO … Hmmm, I cannot say I have heard it called that before, but it totally fits. I think this is the first subject that we both see eye to eye on: STAR TREK. (I must say that your avatar… heh, confusing term on this thread… your profile picture, is pretty cool… seems to suit you well.) I thought JJ Trek was… exciting enough. I use “exciting” somewhat grudgingly… It resembled the original Trek very little, other than the colored uniforms and the basic shape of the ships. I would say the movie was good, not very great, but it butchered what Star Trek is… or was anyway. I take it you don’t mind if I vent on this subject?
-
Well some real desperate people wanted to see it because of how blue women are not whereing all of there clothing! :lol: :lol:
Also watch how Transformers 3 will do without Megan Fox.
-
I am quite fine with hearing anything that isn’t glowing praise of JJ Trek. I personally thought it was horrible enough that JJ is officially on ‘probation’ as a creator.
Did he have to steal one of the worst bits from one of the worst Star Wars movies? shudder
Saved this from a talkback on Ain’t it Cool News. Format is as found so sorry if its tough to read.
Is this Trek worth taking?
by beneath_the_cowl May 11th, 2009 04:49:07 PMI saw it Friday night. it is a solid, well executed script. you could almost hear the screenwriters thinking as plot points clicked into place. definitely better directed than Mission Impossible III (JJ Abrams’ last big screen adventure). Lots of action, explosions, fast paced thrills and homages to the original series. BUT BUT BUT, I have to say at the end of it all, I felt like I had just been served a porcelain hamburger.
It looked like the real thing and was artfully crafted in many ways to be better than a hamburger, with all its flaws, could ever hope to be. But at the end of the day I couldn’t eat it – it had no power to sustain me. When EVERYONE is raving about a movie, my gut tells me it’s feeding into the cultural mandates and norms of our day, which usually means something is lacking. And in this case, what was lacking was Star Trek’s gooey moral center.
These characters, although they have much to lose in the story, are never faced with any of the moral or ethical dilemmas that made the original series (or even some of the spin offs) what it was. In this film, without giving anything away, Kirk is basically rewarded for being a rebel. Flout authority at every turn and at the end you’ll be in command of your very own starship. Even the Kobiyashi Maru sequence is treated as a joke. And though Spock’s comments underscore the need for fear and respect in the face of certain death, we never see that lesson played out. The movie plays well on the “isn’t this cool that we’re reinventing Star Trek” level. And many times it REEKS of Star Wars, Episode IV, with Kirk as Luke longing for adventure. But a day later there’s a sadness in my heart that our culture is swept up in a story so morally and ethically vacuous.
Sure it’ll make a ton of money and spawn sequels. But even there, we’ll see this new machine breakdown. This cast won’t have the staying power of the originals. They’ll get bored and want out of their contracts after 3 pictures, as is the case with this generation. And so what then, will Paramount reinvent the reinvention? Don’t get me wrong, it was wildly entertaining. And of the performances, Bones McCoy, Spock and Uhura stand out the most. Even Pike, as the last of a dying breed of noble Star Trek officers. Tyler Perry has a cameo, and it was nice that it was handled with dignity. Roger Ebert’s review pretty much nailed it. Overall I guess what I missed most in this film was a sense of Star Trek’s nobility.
I always liked Star Trek because, although it was humanistic, there was a sense, in this dream of a new frontier, that this could be humanity at its best. I walked away saying I would never want to be on a ship with those spoiled brats. And if they’re boldly going where no man has gone before…let 'em go. Send me a postcard occassionally, but I’m not sure if I want to take the ride. Also, this movie suffers from what every other TV show that’s given the big screen treatment suffers from, namely, you can’t treat a film like this as an ensemble piece, it has to be one man’s story. And this film tries to be both Kirk and Spock’s story. It gives us an efficient plot to accomplish that, but in the end we barely scratch the surface of either man.
I actually think I’d be much more excited about this if this were a reboot of the TV series rather than the film franchise. Yeah, I’d tune in to watch these guys on TV, maybe because I feel like there’d be time to really unpack some sweet character moments, and perhaps also because I feel like the actors themselves would have more of a long term commitment/investment in the property. But as a film franchise I feel like we will never really get to know these characters ever again.
And, like I said earlier, I think the movie biz fosters a high turnover rate. I just can’t see this cast suiting up 20 years from now like the original Trekkers for a new slate of films. As exciting as it was, I think we’ve seen the best from Star Trek already. Because of the moral and ethical shifts in our culture, I don’t think the clarity and self-examination this pantheon of characters needs is even in our vocabulary anymore.
Edit: break up the quote for easier reading. :)
-
@Dylan:
Well some real desperate people wanted to see it because of how blue women are not whereing all of there clothing! :lol: :lol:
Also watch how Transformers 3 will do without Megan Fox.
Transformers 3 will do fine without Megan Fox. It will be a loud dumb CGI fest aimed at then 15 year old boys. Eye candy with questionable acting ability like Ms. Fox is not really hard to replace. And given the low bar for ‘story’ and ‘script’ in that franchise they can milk giant robots beating each other up quite well without the present principals for some time to come.
I had fun with the first and thought the battle scenes and robot stuff were very well done in 2 but I won’t be in line in any way shape or form for parts to come. I like me some big dumb loud action movies but Transformers 2 was a bit too dumb.
Split the 200 million that will no doubt be spent on T3 four ways and give us shot at getting four District 9’s.
-
I am quite fine with hearing anything that isn’t glowing praise of JJ Trek. I personally thought it was horrible enough that JJ is officially on ‘probation’ as a creator.
Did he have to steal one of the worst bits from one of the worst Star Wars movies? shudder
That article was pretty good. I agree with nearly everything on there. The movie lacked in many areas. It was more like going to see a Star Wars movie than Star Trek.
Stealing “one of the worst bits from one of the worst Star Wars movies” … ? What did you mean. What the guy referenced about Kirk being like Luke in Ep. IV? Or something else?
-
I was speaking of the part stolen from Phantom Menace where Kirk is ejected to Hoth… errrr… Delta Vega (which we will soon learn has somehow found its way into orbit around Vulcan or the same star as Vulcan) because apparently a ship the size of Iowa that they had to empty the academy to staff doesn’t have a brig or some empty crew quarters. :roll: Once crash landed Kirk, with another act of rebellion, ignores the instructions to stay put. Kirk soon finds he is being chased by a monster which gets eaten by a bigger monster which gets eaten by a bigger monster.
-
@Dylan:
Well some real desperate people wanted to see it because of how blue women are not whereing all of there clothing! :lol: :lol:
Also watch how Transformers 3 will do without Megan Fox.
Transformers 3 will do fine without Megan Fox. It will be a loud dumb CGI fest aimed at then 15 year old boys. Eye candy with questionable acting ability like Ms. Fox is not really hard to replace. And given the low bar for ‘story’ and ‘script’ in that franchise they can milk giant robots beating each other up quite well without the present principals for some time to come.
I had fun with the first and thought the battle scenes and robot stuff were very well done in 2 but I won’t be in line in any way shape or form for parts to come. I like me some big dumb loud action movies but Transformers 2 was a bit too dumb.
Split the 200 million that will no doubt be spent on T3 four ways and give us shot at getting four District 9’s.
I was referring to grossing
-
I think Jurassic Park, for it’s time, was a greater achievement than Avatar. Jurassic Park is one of my top five theater movies of all time.
-
ET was a big hit in 82, it did better then Star Wars.
-
@Dylan:
ET was a big hit in 82, it did better then Star Wars.
I loved Jurassic Park… I still think it is a great work. Definitely a better film than Avatar.
I never got into ET. Actually I really don’t like it. It used to scare me as a kid. It has been so long since I watched it that I’d have to see it again to tell whether ET lives up to its hype… or status, rather.
I just saw The Matrix for the first time last week… I thought it was a good film, but not an excellent one like so many people seem to think. I am sure if I had seen it in 1998 when it came out I wouldv’e thought it was the coolest thing ever… but I didn’t. I really go for the sci-fi/action/intellectual thriller type stuff, but I just found Matrix to be lacking.
-
I hated Matrix the first time I saw it. My first viewing was a tremendously frustrating experience. I wanted to bloody well throttle Neo.
spoiler alert
As he flys off at the end I got up from my seat with a loud, “About effing time.” I still get a bit antsy with it but I enjoy all the action sequences.
-
@Dylan:
@Dylan:
Well some real desperate people wanted to see it because of how blue women are not whereing all of there clothing! :lol: :lol:
Also watch how Transformers 3 will do without Megan Fox.
Transformers 3 will do fine without Megan Fox. It will be a loud dumb CGI fest aimed at then 15 year old boys. Eye candy with questionable acting ability like Ms. Fox is not really hard to replace. And given the low bar for ‘story’ and ‘script’ in that franchise they can milk giant robots beating each other up quite well without the present principals for some time to come.
I had fun with the first and thought the battle scenes and robot stuff were very well done in 2 but I won’t be in line in any way shape or form for parts to come. I like me some big dumb loud action movies but Transformers 2 was a bit too dumb.
Split the 200 million that will no doubt be spent on T3 four ways and give us shot at getting four District 9’s.
I was referring to grossing
So was I. :-)
-
I hated Matrix the first time I saw it. My first viewing was a tremendously frustrating experience. I wanted to bloody well throttle Neo.
I wouldn’t say I effing hated it… not nearly. But I found that it left much to be desired. Plus, the ending was beyond cheesy/cliche for a movie of this purported caliber, so that kinda sealed the deal for my thumbs horizontal take on it. I have no complaints about the scenes when the characters are outside the Matrix; I thought those were great. Especially when Neo is released from it and you see what happens to him. That was kinda spooky.
-
@Dylan:
I never got into ET. Actually I really don’t like it. It used to scare me as a kid.
Stephen King’s IT scared me as a child.
-
@Dylan:
ET was a big hit in 82, it did better then Star Wars.
I loved Jurassic Park… I still think it is a great work. Definitely a better film than Avatar.
I never got into ET. Actually I really don’t like it. It used to scare me as a kid. It has been so long since I watched it that I’d have to see it again to tell whether ET lives up to its hype… or status, rather.
I just saw The Matrix for the first time last week… I thought it was a good film, but not an excellent one like so many people seem to think. I am sure if I had seen it in 1998 when it came out I wouldv’e thought it was the coolest thing ever… but I didn’t. I really go for the sci-fi/action/intellectual thriller type stuff, but I just found Matrix to be lacking.
Jaws in 75?
-
It was the most pathetic story and the lack of plot was replaced with special effects to make up for everything else that sucked.
3-D is the total downfall of movies and now has replaced a proper story with junk that fly’s in your face.
It’s a gimmick to sell toys and taco bell marketing tie ins to promote diabetes in children.
This goes for the comic book movies and that "Arnold Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief " riff raff, or Narnia lion thing whatever.
-
didn’t like it. felt like i was watching Thundercats. very distracting
-
@Imperious:
It was the most pathetic story and the lack of plot was replaced with special effects to make up for everything else that sucked.
3-D is the total downfall of movies and now has replaced a proper story with junk that fly’s in your face.
It’s a gimmick to sell toys and taco bell marketing tie ins to promote diabetes in children.
Haha… I like this analysis. :-D
Suggested Topics
