They’re event films that you want to see for the spectacle. That’s what they have going for them. They leave the same impression as a fireworks show, which is why everyone goes but no one talks about it afterward.
Well, popular is not the same as good. Is Taylor Swift the best singer and composer in the world? (definitely not)
I’m not saying the avatar movies are bad, but IMO there’s lots wrong with them story wise. Impressive visuals alone don’t make a film good.
It’s like McDonalds vs a local restaurant. More people go to McDs, but I bet most local restaurants are way better.
The difference being that sadly people wouldn’t pay more to watch small scale film like they do with restaurants.
Have you not been to McD’s in a few years? McD’s is the expensive option. People pay for familiarity, because they’re dumb lazy slobs.
Depends what you mean by the expensive option…
The option that’s more expensive than the other.
Sure, they’re not priced like a Michelin Starred restaurant. Sure a few sitdown restaurants have also raised their prices (especially popular chains), but the comparison is McD’s vs “another local burger joint”. While Five Guys and Red Robin might not be cheaper than McD’s, they’re also not a local burger joint!
I’d also argue they’re not trying to compete with McD’s, while McD’s is competing with them on price.
The term “best” is extremely vague. How does one define the “best” anything? There are countless possible options, some of which would absolutely put Taylor as the best. There are also many that wouldn’t, some even putting her near the bottom.
Avatar was, and always has been, a movie about the visuals. It’s total eye-candy, meant to wow audiences. And if that’s how you define the “best” movie, it probably is.
But it’s equally valid to define the best as being a total immersion, or drawing your emotions, or being convincing, or having an expansive story to tell. Especially on that last option, Avatar is pretty bad.
Siskel and Ebert were well-known for their movie reviews. Typically, one hated it and the other loved it, and for different reasons. Their goal was to articulate this well enough that you, as a viewer, could determine if you would like the movie. Your “best” movie is unique to you.
If Avatar is just about visuals they should have released a screensaver.
Story is literally the first, smallest, simpelest part of a movie. If that’s what you judge movies on, maybe you should read books instead.
How… What…? So you watch movies mostly because of the pretty pictures? Are you a toddler?
For lots of reasons. I enjoy some movies for the story, others for the performances, a few for the world building, some for the concepts, occasionally for making me think about them weeks later, sometimes for the cozy mindless sweetness. And dozens more reasons. I can find reasons to appreciate nearly any movie.
Saying that every movie needs to have this one thing to be good, is the definition of narrow minded.
But the story/plot is what the movie bases its foundation on. A well written movie with bad CGI is better than a visually good movie with a bad story. IMO, yes you can enjoy a movie for specific reasons, but the core story should be at least good for me to like it. Just my opinion of course.
There are great movies that can’t even be said to have an actual story at all. Just a collection of scenes that hopefully make you feel something.
I would probably argue the collection of scenes tell a great story, which is why it’s good. Most Snyder films for example can be visually stunning without a lot of dialogue but the story is terrible that it takes away any enjoyment of the visuals.
Dialog isn’t a requirement of a story. Good Boy has less than a dozen spoken lines in the movie, as it’s from a dogs perspective. But it also has a very clear story and plot. That’s not what I’m talking about. Check out some movies on this list.
There are great movies that can’t even be said to have an actual story at all.
My Neighbor Totoro (1988)
That’s probably 20% on the way to what I mean.
It still has a pretty clear describable naritive story. It doesn’t always make sense, and sometimes you don’t know what’s happening. Maybe yah. It’s less story than I remember.
Well, yeah. Avatar has to be good world building. But what’s the point if it wastes it on a mid story with bad plot?
World building isn’t enough on its own? You can’t just put on the movie and hang out in this place for a while?
Apparently not. People here act all high and mighty when it comes to movies doing well with general audiences. Watch, in just a couple years we’ll get posts on Lemmy saying “the Avatar movies were actually pretty good, I don’t understand the hate” just like on reddit.
This community is turning into r/movies every goddamn day, where any time someone posts an article or something about a popular movie most of the community feels the need to jump on a hate bandwagon and act like their own farts are better moviegoing experiences.
Of course not. Unless they release the wild life documentary of Pandora.
deleted by creator
I think you need to take a break from the Internet for today my friend. I have my opinions. There’s no need to come all rabid at me.
But regardless, having lots of viewers is still not a measure of how goo a film is. Specially when the marketing budget for these movies is bugger than whole film festivals.
What is the measure of a good movie? Your opinion?
It’s obviously very subjective but there are definitely concrete measures. Is the writing good, consistent, believable in-universe? Is the acting good, authentic, believable, impactful? If the movie is not all CGI, is filming good? Does it look good or are all scenes deep fried?
A mid movie that pleases the masses will always be more successful than a technically impressive but more niche movie that pushes the envelope.
Everything you said is subjective. You used a lot of words to say the same thing I did. Your opinion.
Well, that’s your opinion. It’s a bad opinion, but it’s valid.
Yeah …When you grow up you will realize everyone has terrible tastes. Everyone enjoys bad music. Movies and books.
There are many, many objective qualities to art.
There are also many subjective qualities to art.
The existence of one does not preclude the other.
Please identify an objective one.
Tits.
The Bechdel test.
For a non joke answer, stories can objectively be written better than others. Like a story that actually uses Chekhov’s Gun correctly. Stories that don’t have massive actual plot holes (actual, not your dumb ass being confused or upset).
Similarly, the art in a movie can have amazing technical achievement and yet still kinda’ be a shit movie qualitatively over all.
For a specific example of something objectively bad… The sequel trilogy. More specifically, the blue tittymilk in TLJ. What goal did that scene serve? If the point wasn’t to jump the shark and make the audience squirm and/or laugh, it was an objectively bad decision to put that scene in, in the way they did.
My car can be an objectively fine, functional car, but if I drive it off a boat ramp expecting it to float, I’ve made an objectively bad decision with an otherwise fine object. Art is much of the same. Bad art can be comprised of objectively good pieces, yet still get ruined by a bunch of decisions that are dumb and wrong and objectively bad for any practical goal any sane person would’ve had. Similarly, a movie could be written and edited expertly, but a bunch of shitty low budget sets could ruin it. Or inversely, a movie could be beautiful visually but written by a moronic toddler.
When something has 100,000 better options out of 110,000 that are even possible, it was an objectively bad choice (unless nearly every possible choice was a good one, but let’s be real).
Something can work and still be objectively worse than something else. Art does not only need to entertain to be quality. To think as much is to wholly and completely fail to understand art, expression, and criticism as concepts.
So you can compare Shawshank Redemption to Ernest Goes to Jail?
Yes… In many ways. Let me know if you would like to hear some.
I would!
Ernest goes to jail has 11% on RT
Shawshank has 89% on RT
EGTJ Was directed by John Cherry
SR Was directed by Frank Darabont
EGTJ is 88 minutes long
SR is 222 minutes long
Both movies were flops
doubters? its a movie. either you like it or you don’t. The first one was alright but not good enough for me to watch any of the sequels although I might if they are free on some streaming thing and I have the time. Not sure I could convince my wife to watch them with me though.
It baffles me that people watch this. The first was bad enough. But seven sequels?
I saw Avatar 2 for the first time a couple weeks ago. So formulaic I was bored most of the movie. A Disney cartoon has more originality.
I’m not gonna yuck anyone’s yum. If a person likes these movies (as clearly, lots of people do), good for them. I saw the first avatar in the theater however the fuck long ago that movie came out now. It was pretty, and as you say, boring as hell. It’ll be the only Avatar film I ever see.
I was really unimpressed by the first one, but found the second one to be surprisingly enjoyable. Nothing mind-blowing or anything, but it was entertaining.
I actually enjoyed Avatar 2 more than Avatar 1 because they spent so much time basically not progressing the story and showing me the local fauna. The story is terrible, but I would 100% watch a BBC Pandora Wild Life series.
Top Gun Maverick was no different.
Maybe the most predictable movie I’ve seen in recent years. I was entirely bored (outside the scene of Mavrick proving the run was doable. Those shots through the canyon were fantasic.) But that’s not enough to redeem the rest being wholly unoriginal.I can’t even be bothered to see it, my friends can’t understand.
Like what could you possibly do in a second movie?
Oh it’s worth seeing! Its extremely well crafted from a filmmaking perspective.
As for what you could do with a sequal?
There are lots of interesting things. What if Mavrick dies saving Goose’s kid, or dies in the first 20 min due to a fuckup by Goose’s kid. Or what if he’s married with a kid himself and refuses to fly in combat again, when he’s forced to completes the mission, but he dies. Those would all be unexpected and interesting stories. There could be even more where he doesn’t die.
I so don’t get it. I couldn’t even finish the first one, it was so boring. I’m glad people can enjoy things, im just very confused by what they do enjoy.
It’s so terribly transparent and unoriginal.
somehow it still has doubters
Maybe not everyone likes ‘sci-fi Pocahontas’?
It doesn’t need to be good to be popular. Now let’s dust off and nuke the smurfs from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
I just like movies and being entertained. Sometimes I want a deep story with intricate twists and turns and complex characters. Other times I just want to watch big explosions and watch a bunch of lasers flying at people.
There’s room in this universe for all kinds of movies. I don’t get why so many people here feel the need to come in and say “yeah well I didn’t like it/it’s not a good story because I found it boring.”
Stop generalizing your opinions as if it’s how everyone feels; you’re dangerously close to closing yourself in an echochamber of opinions.
I don’t care if it is sci-fi Pocahontas. The first one was pretty. I haven’t seen the other two.
One of my favorite anime series is a pretty clear ripoff of an older series. Fans debate it but it’s crystal clear to most who’ve seen both. And here I am just saying, isn’t it awesome we have both?
I mean obviously if the reused story beats are compelling enough to create a new franchise, people aren’t tired of it. If they were, it wouldn’t sell and they’d stop reusing it.
Oh hey look, we’re getting yet another Robin Hood movie. We got another Count of Monte Cristo last year. It’s fine. People love these stories. They will keep coming as long as they keep selling.
Shit they even remade Nosferatu and it was awesome
I love some of James Cameron’s filmography (Terminator, Aliens, yes even Terminator: Dark Fate), but I don’t get these ugly Smurfs. I don’t get how people say the movies are beautiful, they look like ugly badly rendered shallow computer games.
The first one was beautiful, but utter crap in terms of writing, story and acting so I didn’t bother seeing the others.
Sci-fi pocahontas is apt.
Too fucking long, anyway. Movies need to go back to being 90 minutes standard, cut some schlock.
Movies need to go back to being 90 minutes standard
When was that? When you were a kid?
Kids movies are still 90min.Personally, I like movies that are 2 hours or longer. Especially when you see them in the theaters, as it feels like it’s actually justifying the stupid costs of everything.
It feels like I’m actually going to a bit of an event.
That article title is spot.
Oldest and Dumbest debate.
No cultural significance …herpa derp…
deleted by creator
