On 01/21/10 17:09, Warp wrote:
>    I have seen much worse movies in terms of scripting, though. Much, much
> worse.

	Sure - it wasn't a crappy movie. It's just not particularly good.

-- 
Such is life, and it is getting sucher and sucher.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/21/10 17:12, Warp wrote:
>    I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
> another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
> genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)

	I consider those as irrelevant in terms of originality. It didn't 
really add much to the basic plot. The idea of living through an 
external body - including for handicapped folks - isn't original.

-- 
Such is life, and it is getting sucher and sucher.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
> 
>   I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
> another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
> genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)

No, but there are lots of books and short stories like that. It wasn't 
original - it was just the first *movie* with that, per se.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >>         Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
> > 
> >   I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
> > another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
> > genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)

> No, but there are lots of books and short stories like that. It wasn't 
> original - it was just the first *movie* with that, per se.

  Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?

  Every story is always based on what was before. There's rarely anything
truly original and innovative.

  It's the execution that counts.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message 
news:4b58ecf0@news.povray.org...
> On 01/13/10 22:11, Darren New wrote:
>> Pretty but cliche.
>
> Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
>

I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea. I note, for the 
record, that this is neither an absolute nor an accepted theory in all 
circles, but I think the concept has merit.

Also, a film is not just a story, although I think a compelling story is 
important. This one has the classic 
"boy-meets-girl-boy-loses-girl-boy-does-something-heroic-boy-gets-girl", 
which is one of my favorites. But, to each his own.

A film is, or should be, a kind of art that is a balancing act. Art is a 
communication method; it communicates emotions the way that words 
communicate ideas. The balancing act comes in unifying the emotional message 
from the hundreds (in this case, close to 3,000 according to the best 
estimates I could find) people.

To me, a compelling story is not just one that's interesting, it makes me 
wonder, "what happens next?" My favorite novels always leave me wanting to 
know more about the lives of the characters. That certainly happened for me 
with this film.

As an aside, I must say that I'm enjoying the fact that, in a space occupied 
by so many technical people as in this group, that so much of the discussion 
of this film has been focused on the story and the visual look of the film. 
There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this 
movie. Most of the time, when that happens in a movie (Armaggedon, anyone?) 
I find the film unwatchable. I was so caught up in Avatar that it didn't 
even register with me until later, and even then, I shrugged it off with a 
"who cares, it was great" attitude. :-)

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message

"Captain Jack" <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
> movie. Most of the time, when that happens in a movie (Armaggedon, anyone?)
> I find the film unwatchable. I was so caught up in Avatar that it didn't
> even register with me until later, and even then, I shrugged it off with a
> "who cares, it was great" attitude. :-)

Cameron is good at that. Aliens (and to a lesser degree, Terminator) also manage
to get enough detail right, in a well-paced story, that you don't mind (or
indeed notice) the potential problems.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/22/10 01:33, Warp wrote:
>    Every story is always based on what was before. There's rarely anything
> truly original and innovative.
>
>    It's the execution that counts.

	And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd 
have liked the movie more.

	I actually like unoriginal movies that were made really well (e.g. A 
Simple Plan). This won points on the effects front, but little else.

-- 
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/22/10 06:39, Captain Jack wrote:
> Also, a film is not just a story, although I think a compelling story is
> important. This one has the classic
> "boy-meets-girl-boy-loses-girl-boy-does-something-heroic-boy-gets-girl",
> which is one of my favorites. But, to each his own.

	Oh, I don't mind it either. I just wish it was a bit different in 
execution, though. Did they really need that jealous guy, for example? 
It was as if the writer was following some recipe book to the letter.

> To me, a compelling story is not just one that's interesting, it makes me
> wonder, "what happens next?" My favorite novels always leave me wanting to
> know more about the lives of the characters. That certainly happened for me
> with this film.

	Not for me. Some of the (human) characters were so heavily stereotyped 
that there was little left to wonder about them after you'd seen each of 
them for a few minutes.

	I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better characters 
- even if the plot was completely unoriginal.

-- 
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> something *genuinely* original, 

I think that the cost of a movie prevents you from doing something *really* 
original. Some of the stuff like Total Recall or Jumper would have been a 
pretty original story had it not come from a book.  But I don't think you'll 
find too many people spending $200million on a completely new and untested 
story.

Books? Lots of books with genuinely original stories out there.

>   Every story is always based on what was before. 

It's easy (so to speak) to do completely original short stories, for 
example. That's one of the hallmarks of science fiction.

Of course, you can always generalize a story to the point where it's no 
longer original. You can take something like Jumper and say "there are lots 
of stories where someone with something special is fleeing from those who 
fear him" or dismiss Total Recall with "it's a boy-meets-girl romantic 
comedy". There's some level of detail you have to retain for a story to be 
unique, as every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Captain Jack wrote:
> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea. I note, for the 
> record, that this is neither an absolute nor an accepted theory in all 
> circles, but I think the concept has merit.

You should note that the original formulation was that there were only seven 
basic plots that work well in a theater play.

Movies? Books? Lots more than seven. Stories you can tell with live actors 
on a stage? OK, maybe 7 counts, if you lump all of comedy as one plot and 
all of tragedy as another.

To some extent, there's only so much you can do in a movie, too, as movies 
are very expensive to make and you still can't learn stuff except by seeing 
it happen. Altho "flashbacks" and voice-over narration can help, you still 
can't get as much of that in as you can in a novel.

> There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this 
> movie. 

It wasn't really a science fiction movie, unlike Armaggedon was. Hence, 
since the science wasn't really driving the movie per se, the fact that the 
science was bogus didn't hurt the story.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message