|
On January 09 2010 08:11 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 05:46 ZeroCartin wrote:On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it. wtf This makes no sense at all. How can you guys not understand? With millions of dollars in budget, there is great responsibility. The movie is not the directors ideal and the directors ideal alone, he need to please the audience (the masses), other staff and corporations who put their budget into the movie. The end result is often a straggling yet politically correct and morally acceptable product. A product without any soul left, the only thing remaining is a cold calculation of the expected income. Who wants to see such culture? Most of the world apparently...
Meh, you can say whatever you want but no one I know personally regretted watching it and most enjoyed it immensely.
There's no need to post some comments (which, to be honest, seems to be only BS) which will only be looked upon as a troll's. Not quite sure how your line of logic works out anyway. -_-
|
|
|
On January 09 2010 10:12 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 08:11 Shauni wrote:On January 09 2010 05:46 ZeroCartin wrote:On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it. wtf This makes no sense at all. How can you guys not understand? With millions of dollars in budget, there is great responsibility. The movie is not the directors ideal and the directors ideal alone, he need to please the audience (the masses), other staff and corporations who put their budget into the movie. The end result is often a straggling yet politically correct and morally acceptable product. A product without any soul left, the only thing remaining is a cold calculation of the expected income. Who wants to see such culture? Most of the world apparently... Meh, you can say whatever you want but no one I know personally regretted watching it and most enjoyed it immensely. There's no need to post some comments (which, to be honest, seems to be only BS) which will only be looked upon as a troll's. Not quite sure how your line of logic works out anyway. -_-
Thats exactly his point. Its a movie for the masses, something you usually don't regret to watch. Yet this kind of movie usually lacks some depth and the story is obvious because it builds up to a certain happy end.
I just came out of watching the movie and I agree with Shauni. I don't regret watching it, since I was very interested how a 3D movie looks like and what all this hype was about. The movie had some nice moments and the effects were pretty epic. The story though didn't suprise even once why I wouldn't rate this movie as a top10 movie I ever watched or something like that.
|
On January 09 2010 10:03 wishbones wrote:
This movie was perfect except for one part. The part where Jake suddenly knows that Pandora's jelly is flamable. But other than that, i had no english subtitles which made the movie more interestingly real ahah. ok great movie 10/10. Man oh man eevn the ending had a complete feeling. I wanna be avatar'ed bitchez
I wouldn't consider it 'sudden'. It was already pitch dark by the time he got something lit. For all we know he spent all of dusk trying and failing to find things to set on fire (which would have been a really boring montage).
|
this was one of the best movies i have ever seen
highly recommended
|
I came into it hearing that the 3d+IMAX was just so incredible it had to be seen despite a "standard"/lackluster story.
I ended up being blown away by the 3d and the story was very fun for me too 
|
There is such a thing as an objective way of evaluating the quality of art, but most people dismiss it because they dont have the specific kind of skills that allow them to look at it objectively, and their rating of whatever kind of art they are faced with will be defined by what emotions and memories that has aroused at the moment of evaluating said art.
Not that im saying that those things arent important to the process of appreaciating beauty within ones work, but to truly be considered a masterpiece it needs more than to make people gaze in awe to amazing eye candy coupled with a super cliche story, because that will make it shallow.
To ilustrate my point further.
Its already known fact that the hability to understand and appreaciate music is deeply connected with how mathematical your brain is, the more mathematical, theorically the more able to appreciate music you are.
But, instead of seeing those people appreaciate all kinds of music, you see them converging to a specific set of musics who share interesting mathematical patterns.
Usually people with "more" mathematical brains will like musics with more complexity, that are harder to understand and appreaciate, like Classic music, of heavy metal.
While people in the bottom low of the mathetical spectrum will absolutely love musics with simple repetitive beats that are more story telling with a soundtrack than music, to them taste is completely subjective (what doesnt keep someone who loves hip hop to deeply believe metal is horrible music) he likes whatever music he likes not because of some objective sense of music analyzing, but because of what emotions the music is able to surface on him when he listen to it, if the neural synapses the music triggers make him feel good, he will like it, whereas someone on the top end of the spectrum will have this same mechanism for evaluating art, he load this "software" with the other part of your brain, creating a whole new way of making associations between the timings of the music, and sequences of sounds.
to him, the mathematicity of the music and how it fits toghether with it self, will surface those strong dopamin injecting emotions (its complex to explain, if someone hasnt understood it ill explain more just say)
Its the same thing with any other kind of art, those able to objectively analyze art will be those who are not seeking some sense of entertaining out of it but a sense of mathematical perfection, of all fitting together perfectly to create a bridge between mundane and divine.
And im sure its much more profitable to make simple stuff that pleases the masses than to try to create content to a bunch of over analizers who seek enjoy not the overall picture you pain, but the shades of grey on it.
|
Why do people care so much about the popularity or money when it all comes down to quality. This is the best movie I've seen and that's all that matters. I am also pleased that there will be a sequel with the Na'vi universe, Sully being a na'vi and the earthlings coming back for the fuel or whatever mineral they need (no way they're giving up!).
|
On January 09 2010 08:11 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 05:46 ZeroCartin wrote:On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it. wtf This makes no sense at all. How can you guys not understand? With millions of dollars in budget, there is great responsibility. The movie is not the directors ideal and the directors ideal alone, he need to please the audience (the masses), other staff and corporations who put their budget into the movie. The end result is often a straggling yet politically correct and morally acceptable product. A product without any soul left, the only thing remaining is a cold calculation of the expected income. Who wants to see such culture? Most of the world apparently...
So a quality movie with a soul should be one that is not politically correct, not morally acceptable, one that the masses do not want to see, and one huge box office flop. Damn.
|
On January 10 2010 02:38 D10 wrote:
There is such a thing as an objective way of evaluating the quality of art, but most people dismiss it because they dont have the specific kind of skills that allow them to look at it objectively, and their rating of whatever kind of art they are faced with will be defined by what emotions and memories that has aroused at the moment of evaluating said art.
Not that im saying that those things arent important to the process of appreaciating beauty within ones work, but to truly be considered a masterpiece it needs more than to make people gaze in awe to amazing eye candy coupled with a super cliche story, because that will make it shallow.
To ilustrate my point further.
Its already known fact that the hability to understand and appreaciate music is deeply connected with how mathematical your brain is, the more mathematical, theorically the more able to appreciate music you are.
But, instead of seeing those people appreaciate all kinds of music, you see them converging to a specific set of musics who share interesting mathematical patterns.
Usually people with "more" mathematical brains will like musics with more complexity, that are harder to understand and appreaciate, like Classic music, of heavy metal.
While people in the bottom low of the mathetical spectrum will absolutely love musics with simple repetitive beats that are more story telling with a soundtrack than music, to them taste is completely subjective (what doesnt keep someone who loves hip hop to deeply believe metal is horrible music) he likes whatever music he likes not because of some objective sense of music analyzing, but because of what emotions the music is able to surface on him when he listen to it, if the neural synapses the music triggers make him feel good, he will like it, whereas someone on the top end of the spectrum will have this same mechanism for evaluating art, he load this "software" with the other part of your brain, creating a whole new way of making associations between the timings of the music, and sequences of sounds.
to him, the mathematicity of the music and how it fits toghether with it self, will surface those strong dopamin injecting emotions (its complex to explain, if someone hasnt understood it ill explain more just say)
Its the same thing with any other kind of art, those able to objectively analyze art will be those who are not seeking some sense of entertaining out of it but a sense of mathematical perfection, of all fitting together perfectly to create a bridge between mundane and divine.
And im sure its much more profitable to make simple stuff that pleases the masses than to try to create content to a bunch of over analizers who seek enjoy not the overall picture you pain, but the shades of grey on it.
You're assuming that more complex music is somehow 'better' then less complex music. There is nothing inherent to complexity that makes it better. It is simply more complex.
|
On January 10 2010 07:12 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2010 02:38 D10 wrote:
There is such a thing as an objective way of evaluating the quality of art, but most people dismiss it because they dont have the specific kind of skills that allow them to look at it objectively, and their rating of whatever kind of art they are faced with will be defined by what emotions and memories that has aroused at the moment of evaluating said art.
Not that im saying that those things arent important to the process of appreaciating beauty within ones work, but to truly be considered a masterpiece it needs more than to make people gaze in awe to amazing eye candy coupled with a super cliche story, because that will make it shallow.
To ilustrate my point further.
Its already known fact that the hability to understand and appreaciate music is deeply connected with how mathematical your brain is, the more mathematical, theorically the more able to appreciate music you are.
But, instead of seeing those people appreaciate all kinds of music, you see them converging to a specific set of musics who share interesting mathematical patterns.
Usually people with "more" mathematical brains will like musics with more complexity, that are harder to understand and appreaciate, like Classic music, of heavy metal.
While people in the bottom low of the mathetical spectrum will absolutely love musics with simple repetitive beats that are more story telling with a soundtrack than music, to them taste is completely subjective (what doesnt keep someone who loves hip hop to deeply believe metal is horrible music) he likes whatever music he likes not because of some objective sense of music analyzing, but because of what emotions the music is able to surface on him when he listen to it, if the neural synapses the music triggers make him feel good, he will like it, whereas someone on the top end of the spectrum will have this same mechanism for evaluating art, he load this "software" with the other part of your brain, creating a whole new way of making associations between the timings of the music, and sequences of sounds.
to him, the mathematicity of the music and how it fits toghether with it self, will surface those strong dopamin injecting emotions (its complex to explain, if someone hasnt understood it ill explain more just say)
Its the same thing with any other kind of art, those able to objectively analyze art will be those who are not seeking some sense of entertaining out of it but a sense of mathematical perfection, of all fitting together perfectly to create a bridge between mundane and divine.
And im sure its much more profitable to make simple stuff that pleases the masses than to try to create content to a bunch of over analizers who seek enjoy not the overall picture you pain, but the shades of grey on it. You're assuming that more complex music is somehow 'better' then less complex music. There is nothing inherent to complexity that makes it better. It is simply more complex.
Actually i don't think he once pointed towards the notion that complex music is better.
And to counter his example, I love classical music deeply, much more than anyone I know at my age. However, I absolutely loved Avatar.
|
On January 10 2010 07:23 Dave[9] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2010 07:12 seppolevne wrote:On January 10 2010 02:38 D10 wrote:
There is such a thing as an objective way of evaluating the quality of art, but most people dismiss it because they dont have the specific kind of skills that allow them to look at it objectively, and their rating of whatever kind of art they are faced with will be defined by what emotions and memories that has aroused at the moment of evaluating said art.
Not that im saying that those things arent important to the process of appreaciating beauty within ones work, but to truly be considered a masterpiece it needs more than to make people gaze in awe to amazing eye candy coupled with a super cliche story, because that will make it shallow.
To ilustrate my point further.
Its already known fact that the hability to understand and appreaciate music is deeply connected with how mathematical your brain is, the more mathematical, theorically the more able to appreciate music you are.
But, instead of seeing those people appreaciate all kinds of music, you see them converging to a specific set of musics who share interesting mathematical patterns.
Usually people with "more" mathematical brains will like musics with more complexity, that are harder to understand and appreaciate, like Classic music, of heavy metal.
While people in the bottom low of the mathetical spectrum will absolutely love musics with simple repetitive beats that are more story telling with a soundtrack than music, to them taste is completely subjective (what doesnt keep someone who loves hip hop to deeply believe metal is horrible music) he likes whatever music he likes not because of some objective sense of music analyzing, but because of what emotions the music is able to surface on him when he listen to it, if the neural synapses the music triggers make him feel good, he will like it, whereas someone on the top end of the spectrum will have this same mechanism for evaluating art, he load this "software" with the other part of your brain, creating a whole new way of making associations between the timings of the music, and sequences of sounds.
to him, the mathematicity of the music and how it fits toghether with it self, will surface those strong dopamin injecting emotions (its complex to explain, if someone hasnt understood it ill explain more just say)
Its the same thing with any other kind of art, those able to objectively analyze art will be those who are not seeking some sense of entertaining out of it but a sense of mathematical perfection, of all fitting together perfectly to create a bridge between mundane and divine.
And im sure its much more profitable to make simple stuff that pleases the masses than to try to create content to a bunch of over analizers who seek enjoy not the overall picture you pain, but the shades of grey on it. You're assuming that more complex music is somehow 'better' then less complex music. There is nothing inherent to complexity that makes it better. It is simply more complex. Actually i don't think he once pointed towards the notion that complex music is better. And to counter his example, I love classical music deeply, much more than anyone I know at my age. However, I absolutely loved Avatar.
Well he didn't directly, but then I don't see what the point of his post was... That more mathematically adept people like the same kinds of music? Swell.
|
Just trying to open peoples minds!
More mathematical people enjoy looking for hidden patterns while those on the other end of the spectrum will enjoy more shallow and easy to graps concepts.
Dont get me wrong, im not saying all people of one side or the other will converge to the same tastes, its very dependant of who you are and what you have lived to ultimately determine if you liked something or not.
|
i don't like metal or hard rock
according to that guy's post i'm bad at math
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
i love metal but i absolutely detest math!
|
anyway it is pretty clear that avatar is the jack in the box 2 tacos of the movie industry
sure they aren't great tacos by definition
but holy fuck are they amazing and if you disagree you are wrong and need to stop being angsty
|
On January 10 2010 06:50 Ecorin wrote:
Why do people care so much about the popularity or money when it all comes down to quality. This is the best movie I've seen and that's all that matters. I am also pleased that there will be a sequel with the Na'vi universe, Sully being a na'vi and the earthlings coming back for the fuel or whatever mineral they need (no way they're giving up!).
The movie has none.
On January 09 2010 10:12 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 08:11 Shauni wrote:On January 09 2010 05:46 ZeroCartin wrote:On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it. wtf This makes no sense at all. How can you guys not understand? With millions of dollars in budget, there is great responsibility. The movie is not the directors ideal and the directors ideal alone, he need to please the audience (the masses), other staff and corporations who put their budget into the movie. The end result is often a straggling yet politically correct and morally acceptable product. A product without any soul left, the only thing remaining is a cold calculation of the expected income. Who wants to see such culture? Most of the world apparently... Meh, you can say whatever you want but no one I know personally regretted watching it and most enjoyed it immensely. There's no need to post some comments (which, to be honest, seems to be only BS) which will only be looked upon as a troll's. Not quite sure how your line of logic works out anyway. -_-
Shauni is actually making sense, a sense that doesn't appeal to the masses. Just like how this thread has been going on, with most of the members applauding the movie for its "greatness", which was thickly based on the graphics that will send most of the people to a zombie state of mind, disabling them to see the overused storyline - any opposition was criticized with a narrow mind, and a blind eye to the movies flaw. I think what Shauni was trying to say is that there's no art in movie making anymore, when you've invested half a billion dollars on a movie, the only way to get that back is by getting the appeal of the masses, and what better way to do that is to overload it with graphics, and actually present an option to watch it in 3D. What's left is just a movie that was made to please the public, a movie just for the money.
|
Wow at all those people critizising the movie.
The movie is a milestone in cinematography and is gonna be know as one of the most important movies of the last 25 years and technical advancements since stereo sound. People seem to forget that movies are art. And this movie certainlz is revolutionable like King Kong and the like.
Now what pieces of art are remembered more, paintings or compositions which tell a great story or those which initiated a new style era?
|
On January 10 2010 21:33 SilverSkyLark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2010 06:50 Ecorin wrote:
Why do people care so much about the popularity or money when it all comes down to quality. This is the best movie I've seen and that's all that matters. I am also pleased that there will be a sequel with the Na'vi universe, Sully being a na'vi and the earthlings coming back for the fuel or whatever mineral they need (no way they're giving up!). The movie has none. Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 10:12 BanZu wrote:On January 09 2010 08:11 Shauni wrote:On January 09 2010 05:46 ZeroCartin wrote:On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it. wtf This makes no sense at all. How can you guys not understand? With millions of dollars in budget, there is great responsibility. The movie is not the directors ideal and the directors ideal alone, he need to please the audience (the masses), other staff and corporations who put their budget into the movie. The end result is often a straggling yet politically correct and morally acceptable product. A product without any soul left, the only thing remaining is a cold calculation of the expected income. Who wants to see such culture? Most of the world apparently... Meh, you can say whatever you want but no one I know personally regretted watching it and most enjoyed it immensely. There's no need to post some comments (which, to be honest, seems to be only BS) which will only be looked upon as a troll's. Not quite sure how your line of logic works out anyway. -_- Shauni is actually making sense, a sense that doesn't appeal to the masses. Just like how this thread has been going on, with most of the members applauding the movie for its "greatness", which was thickly based on the graphics that will send most of the people to a zombie state of mind, disabling them to see the overused storyline - any opposition was criticized with a narrow mind, and a blind eye to the movies flaw. I think what Shauni was trying to say is that there's no art in movie making anymore, when you've invested half a billion dollars on a movie, the only way to get that back is by getting the appeal of the masses, and what better way to do that is to overload it with graphics, and actually present an option to watch it in 3D. What's left is just a movie that was made to please the public, a movie just for the money. i'm hard pressed to find a movie that was created not just for the money
unless you're talking some shittacular high school home video
|
On January 09 2010 08:11 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 05:46 ZeroCartin wrote:On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it. Popular culture is not necessarily bad culture. Even though it has to be accessible to reach out to the masses, I think it is an arrogant assumption that everything that people like is bad. Look at these titles for instance: - Die Leiden des jungen Werthe – Goethe - Ruy Blase – Hugo - Tosca – Puccini - 3rd symphony – Beethoven - Coriolanus – Shakespeare - Kind of blue – Miles Davies These were all mega hits at their time. This makes no sense at all. How can you guys not understand? With millions of dollars in budget, there is great responsibility. The movie is not the directors ideal and the directors ideal alone, he need to please the audience (the masses), other staff and corporations who put their budget into the movie. The end result is often a straggling yet politically correct and morally acceptable product. A product without any soul left, the only thing remaining is a cold calculation of the expected income. Who wants to see such culture? Most of the world apparently...
Popular culture is not necessarily bad culture. Even though it has to be accessible to reach out to the masses, I think it is an arrogant assumption that everything that people like is bad. Look at these titles for instance:
- Die Leiden des jungen Werthe – Goethe
- Ruy Blase – Hugo
- Tosca – Puccini
- 3rd symphony – Beethoven
- Coriolanus – Shakespeare
- Kind of blue – Miles Davies
These were all exremely popular culture at their time.
On January 10 2010 02:38 D10 wrote:
There is such a thing as an objective way of evaluating the quality of art, but most people dismiss it because they dont have the specific kind of skills that allow them to look at it objectively, and their rating of whatever kind of art they are faced with will be defined by what emotions and memories that has aroused at the moment of evaluating said art.
Not that im saying that those things arent important to the process of appreaciating beauty within ones work, but to truly be considered a masterpiece it needs more than to make people gaze in awe to amazing eye candy coupled with a super cliche story, because that will make it shallow.
To ilustrate my point further.
Its already known fact that the hability to understand and appreaciate music is deeply connected with how mathematical your brain is, the more mathematical, theorically the more able to appreciate music you are.
But, instead of seeing those people appreaciate all kinds of music, you see them converging to a specific set of musics who share interesting mathematical patterns.
Usually people with "more" mathematical brains will like musics with more complexity, that are harder to understand and appreaciate, like Classic music, of heavy metal.
While people in the bottom low of the mathetical spectrum will absolutely love musics with simple repetitive beats that are more story telling with a soundtrack than music, to them taste is completely subjective (what doesnt keep someone who loves hip hop to deeply believe metal is horrible music) he likes whatever music he likes not because of some objective sense of music analyzing, but because of what emotions the music is able to surface on him when he listen to it, if the neural synapses the music triggers make him feel good, he will like it, whereas someone on the top end of the spectrum will have this same mechanism for evaluating art, he load this "software" with the other part of your brain, creating a whole new way of making associations between the timings of the music, and sequences of sounds.
to him, the mathematicity of the music and how it fits toghether with it self, will surface those strong dopamin injecting emotions (its complex to explain, if someone hasnt understood it ill explain more just say)
Its the same thing with any other kind of art, those able to objectively analyze art will be those who are not seeking some sense of entertaining out of it but a sense of mathematical perfection, of all fitting together perfectly to create a bridge between mundane and divine.
And im sure its much more profitable to make simple stuff that pleases the masses than to try to create content to a bunch of over analizers who seek enjoy not the overall picture you pain, but the shades of grey on it.
Yes, there is some kind of conection between liking classical music and being good at math. But the perspective is so reductive it's almost laphable: Schumann, Schubert, Wagner, Chopin, Beethoven etc. are exemples of composers who never use hard rhthmical movements, while Bach, Schönberg or Reich do. Most of the music students are as bad at math (if not worse) than the averige person (I haveve been studiying at the conervatory in Stockholm). And all the math students I have met listen to "easy music"... And it is the same thing in litterature, some poets use difficult vers while others are more accessible. You can be a snob if you like, but don’t make art look like masturbation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
