Originally posted by PalynkaI tend to ignore media critics, for the most part I have no idea what their background is, how they form their opinions, or whether or not the organisation they work for gets benefits for good reviews. I know there is a growing movement to install a governing body for cinema critics because of continually unrealistic reviews. You know the type, when every film comes out it's 'The greatest film of the decade' or 'If you only see one film this year, let it be this' etc. I tend to see them as being positive about most blockbusters, but I guess we'd have to make a list of reviewers at hand and review their work, so in light of a lack of that I'll just say it's my opinion. I think money plays a massive part in shaping the public's opinion and also in what opinions media critics have.
How do you explain the good reception of the critics? It's all money talking? Why aren't they half as nice with most blockbusters?
Originally posted by StarrmanPersonally I thought it was the best film I've seen this year. What I wonder is what where you expecting when you went into the cinema, or did you already know you'd hate the film befor you even seen it? What made you think you'd get an original story?
I tend to ignore media critics, for the most part I have no idea what their background is, how they form their opinions, or whether or not the organisation they work for gets benefits for good reviews. I know there is a growing movement to install a governing body for cinema critics because of continually unrealistic reviews. You know the type, when every ...[text shortened]... sive part in shaping the public's opinion and also in what opinions media critics have.
The consistent "if you only see one film this year" hype you talk about is from the PR people not the critics. If you actually read most critics reviews of blockbusters you'd realise that most blockbusters get slated by critics. Avatar is different as Media critics along with the likes of imdb.com and metecritic are rightly full of praise for this film.
The story was only ok, it recycles a few stories from other films but then again the Hollywood template for blockbusters is to do exactly this. The star of the show is definitely the special effects which really are something special, Pandorra is a visual treat and this makes you overlook the films minor flaws. The film has plenty of action and the final battle is excellent, and Cameron does a good job of making you care about the central characters
I really don't understand why anybody expects depth from a hollywood blockbuster!
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanAvatar's legacy will be its exploration of the "ghost in the machine" concept. In the future this will become more relevant, I think, because the current scientific research into consciousness is still so limited by technology. We can make mind-blowing CGI, but hardly scratch the surface of the mysteries of the brain.
Okay, so I went to see this in 3D the other day. I've never seen a film in 3D before and I have to say that it really does enhance the experience of the film. However, the film itself is utter balls.
Imagine Dances with Wolves, on an alien planet, with blue creatures and re-written by a 12yr old.
Need I say more?
Okay, I will: Cameron should be a is devoid of any real point, depth or interest.
Visually astounding, cerebrally puerile.
Computer engineers and scientists are currently replicating the human neuron. It takes vast amounts of computing power to replicate, but it is being done. It will take many years, but the goal is to replicate a brain-sized conglomeration of computer-simulated neurons. Scientists believe that consciousness as well as its neuroplastic effects are a direct result of the magnitude of neuronal firings within the brain itself, nothing more. Therefore, they conclude, if they can replicate the human brain, then consciousness should naturally arise; i.e., there is no such thing as a "ghost in the machine," i.e., consciousness is rooted entirely in the bioelectrochemical structure of the physical brain itself. If this were so, obviously, the transportation of a personality from one body to another, which occurs in Avatar, would be impossible.
As technology advances I think the "ghost in the machine" question will become more and more relevant, and movies like Avatar along with it.
Originally posted by Starrmanhttp://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/epic-fail-avatar-plot-fail.jpg
Okay, so I went to see this in 3D the other day. I've never seen a film in 3D before and I have to say that it really does enhance the experience of the film. However, the film itself is utter balls.
Imagine Dances with Wolves, on an alien planet, with blue creatures and re-written by a 12yr old.
Need I say more?
Okay, I will: Cameron should be a ...[text shortened]... is devoid of any real point, depth or interest.
Visually astounding, cerebrally puerile.
Originally posted by StarrmanThe People don't seem interested in using grassroots word of mouth advertising to counter Big Business spending. But that's because they're not interested in fine art for the most part, the ignorant plebs...
Isn't it a sad indictment of the film world in general that these sort of films are increasingly what are expected/funded/thronged over in the media, at the loss of real cinematic ventures?
