Sneaky27 Posted:

That’s your strawman.

I wasn’t literally bumuming you don’t know the difference between a pop up book and a novel, i was turning your words against you to prove a point. Of course you know the difference between the two. I was merely backing up my argument that we needn’t compare Avatar to other movies, since it’s just flash.

I apologize if you thought that i was honestly accusing you of not knowing the difference between a novel and a book designed for infants. However i do think it’s a valid rebumal to your original post.

Sneaky27 Posted:

Right, because you’re the grand arbiter of enjoyment in the cinema? There’s more than one reason to see a movie, and more than one way to enjoy that movie. You clearly require complex and deep plot points to enjoy a movie. That’s fine, just try to keep from saying that people are very special for thinking any other part of a movie can be enjoyable.

Your viewpoint is not the only one. Learn some tolerance, Mr. Furry.

Oh, and movies, they are flashing lights. Do you not understand how the picture gets to the screen, or the mechanics of the illusion of movement?

I don’t think anyone here (including Shii) is saying that people are stupid for enjoying fluff and good visuals, what I’m saying, and i take it Shii is saying is that Avatar is not a “legitimate” film in the respect that it lacks any redeeming quality other than it’s flashy visuals. This is not to discredit the fact that Visuals can be enjoyed by viewers, but to set thing straight in that a movie and a theme park ride are not one in the same. A movie is designed to be an escape by allowing you to experience a story that you relate to in some way. This is something that is different to each person, and is something that does not require a deep or complex story to be enjoyed.

I’m not simply arguing that Avatar’s lifted and tired story is why it’s not good, i’m arguing that Avatar puts that on the back burner to the Visuals and often goes out of it’s way to show you pretty things that have nothing to do with the story.

This all ties into the topic of 3D films because without the 3D you’re cheated into seeing a lackluster movie.

To give you a better example, let’s look at Nature Dogreat timesentaries. Most of them are boring, and typically visually uninspiring (though this depends on the person and the subject matter, mudskippers do not make for a pretty shot, peamale reproductive organs do). Above all else they value the information first, and the visuals second.

Now lets look at “Planet Earth”. While Planet Earth is a very educational series, it only scratches the surface, not just because of the subject they intend to cover (everything) but also because it would detract from the visuals. It is the only Nature Dogreat timesentary that i know of that uses a soundtrack during most periods of silence, any others i’ve seen just let you listen to nature. This is not a bad thing, but it’s not what everyone is looking for in a Nature Dogreat timesentary, does it make people who like the series wrong? Absolutely not, but only if they realize there is a major flaw to this. I’m not expecting a total reversal, just a simple admission that there is a huge sacrifice made at the cost of entertainment.

I understand there is a disconnect here, because movies are a form of entertainment. However if you take any clbumic movie, and play it in black and white, it should still be just as good as if it were in color. This holds true for many modern movies (the few that come to mind instantly are Fight Club, Boondock Saints, The two Ghostbusters movies, and Clerks, and i know those are in narrow genres that are oft paired, but it also goes for movies like Casablanca, it stands well despite the lack of color.)

I have no intention of swaying you to join my side of the argument, i could care less what you think of the movie, however i don’t appreciate being accused of dirty tricks. I have no problem with being corrected, if i factually make a mistake i should be corrected, that’s how science works, thats how everything should work, however i do not resort to dirty tricks outside of reason (i see no issue calling Avatar a Polished Turd, because that is what i believe, it’s not a baseless attack, i’m not saying something like “Avatar is a movie made for homosexuals” or “James Cameron is very special for unleashing this ****” While i do have issues with Cameron, such as how it appears that he did this just for the money and because George Lucas isn’t making any more Star Wars Films.

It would be easy to say that i’m taking Avatar too seriously, and that i should let it go, however i don’t really take this matter as serious as you might think, i, unlike some, can put mind to keyboard in a very short amount of time, and until i start writing 50 page dogreat timesents on why i don’t like the way they colored the eyes on the Na’vi i don’t think i’m taking this too far.

lol, internet, serious business