CCCToad on 15/9/2010 at 20:50
Quote Posted by demagogue
But Avatar and Inception ... just gave me the packaging of some new way of thinking with the CG to package it. People don't want to feel smart; I think they want the illusion that they're part of something really new and revolutionary, but just the packaging for it (lord knows they'd turn in disgust or be bored to tears if it were really new and revolutionary).
You act like the two are separate. The beauty of those films is that they allow you to feel like you are smart and that you are among the few who "get" whatever message is being pushed. What people don't realize is that the message is rarely as memorable as the CGI is. Avatar is pretty much, like you describe it though: all the CGI in the world can't change the fact that the story is just beating a dead horse. We get it: imperialism is bad, natives are peaceful and idyllic, and obviously that story has NEVER been told before.
Phatose on 16/9/2010 at 00:03
Wait, I thought the message of Avatar was that idiot motherfuckers who mine for floating rocks under trees instead of in floating mountains should not be given control of your corporate mining operations.
Queue on 16/9/2010 at 00:44
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I can't believe you didn't figure that out, Queue. The movie might go over yours.
Well I am a bit thick....
But now it makes sense!
Scots Taffer on 16/9/2010 at 13:35
I don't care if it makes sense, that poster ZB linked is fucking awesome.
Vivian on 16/9/2010 at 14:01
The only real issue I had with it is that everyones dreams consist of extremely sterile financial district buildings, hotels or the second level of MW2. Where the fuck was all the weird stuff? Christopher Nolan obviously has the most straight-laced dreams ever. You could have justifiably have set the entire thing on a mobius snowscape orbiting a gigantic pair of tits, but no: here's a moderately expensive hotel lobby.
Scots Taffer on 16/9/2010 at 14:04
Admittedly his dreams are fairly standardised in their surroundings but that's something that I can empathise with, my dream environs are rarely weird, it's what happens in them and the motivations/actions of people that often defies explanation.
I never have dreams of "flying" or superpowers or any of that shit. I guess I feel fine about that because I consider dreams to be purely the subconscious processing of facts, feelings and so on, so it fits that it wouldn't do free-form creative bollocks like lack of gravity and so on.
Vivian on 16/9/2010 at 14:13
Still seems like a missed opportunity to me. More odd stuff and less sub-bourne gunplay would have made it a lot better.
Scots Taffer on 16/9/2010 at 14:17
Oh, I completely agree that for the purposes of making a cinematic story set in the construct of dreams (especially given the whole flipping paris on its head and walking at 90 degree angles) that they dropped the ball somewhat in the latter half. But I also think I'll love watching it on Blu-Ray and for all its flaws, its ambition alone puts it leagues ahead of most other movies this year.
Queue on 16/9/2010 at 14:20
Without having seen the movie, so I have no idea what the intention was, I can say that dreams set against "normalcy" often shows an escapist mentality toward, or a rejection of, such an environment. Sterile financial district buildings represent a form of decadence and control; hotels represent either places of hiding one's self away, interdependency, or the increasingly crowded human condition. Suddenly, these settings can become the stuff of dreams, or nightmares.
But, I'm just wondering here...
