Jump to content

Hugo 2010 Results


Peadar

Recommended Posts

I often really wonder when I see the type of posts which are so prevalent here, which make it sound like the story and plot are by far the most important thing in a movie. it's visual medium, visuals are at least as important, usually more.

I don't get why so many here dismiss the visual achievements of avatar as something minor, which is dwarfed in comparison with the flaws in the plot. Good plots are dime a dozen, but visuals like Avatar's are incredibly rare. I'd take that kind of beauty and immersion any day of the week over the most unpredictable plot twist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often really wonder when I see the type of posts which are so prevalent here, which make it sound like the story and plot are by far the most important thing in a movie. it's visual medium, visuals are at least as important, usually more.

I don't get why so many here dismiss the visual achievements of avatar as something minor, which is dwarfed in comparison with the flaws in the plot. Good plots are dime a dozen, but visuals like Avatar's are incredibly rare. I'd take that kind of beauty and immersion any day of the week over the most unpredictable plot twist.

What world do you live in?

Film may be a visual medium, but it's also a narrative one. A great movie needs a good script too. Otherwise it's just pretty looking garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a zillion movies with the Avatar plot. The last Samurai, where Tom Cruise comes to fight primitve samurai, joins them, discovers there simple way of life is better, fights his old army friends, etc is just one more example of Avatar already done before.

Not really sure I'd compare it to Titanic though. Avatar reminded me more of the phanton menace, pretty with no substance.

The effects and visuals were great, but in twenty years when they are obsolete, no one will care about this movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, that's exactly what Unobtainium was - it was going to be repalced at some point and they just didn't bother because they thought it was amusing (and they really didn't care).

Avatar's going to be a revolutionary force in cinema. ...

I agree that they really didn't care and that is what bothered me so much about the term. It sums up my entire problem with the movie. They simply didn't care about the plot. If they had spent any time at all on it, I would have been happy. The visuals were stunning. Instead, they spent 0. It ends up being a 3 hour demo of special effects.

Sure, it is a revolutionary force in cinema as far as getting more theaters to go 3d. That doesn't make it a good movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original script for Avatar actually sounds a lot better, but wouldn't have translated as well.

That being said, while I usually nitpick the hell out of things like Unobtainium, it really doesn't matter what the name is. It's a very small part of the plot and is mentioned like twice in the entire movie. It wasn't changed because it's as good a name for a mythical name as any, and if Heinlein can do it, chances are someone in the science world WOULD name it that.

I had a much worse time defending the idea to land marines on the ground when you're about to carpet bomb the enemy encampment. Why? Also, I had an even harder time figuring out why "nuke from orbit" wasn't a reasonable answer to being exiled. The script answers both reasonably well.

All in all, I thought the plot was acceptable if not bland. The characters weren't horrible and the acting didn't make me want to kill people. The motivations were sound and not too heavy-handed. The dialogue felt mostly natural. It wasn't a bad movie in that respect, and if the special effects were merely meh it would have been just another big-budget extravaganza with a meh plot. But it was significantly better than that, and the idea that a group of people who represent the science fiction community would not view a movie with the most realized alien world thus far committed to screen being better than a low-budget 3-room play adaptation...that's pretty sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for the nay-sayers. Why did Avatart achieve the box-office that it has? Beware. It's a trick question with an obvious answer that is also very much wrong in this case.
Avatart? Well, it didn't show up in the box office. It went direct to video as most porn movies do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for the nay-sayers. Why did Avatart achieve the box-office that it has? e.

I am reluctant to answer this since you are clearly trying to be smug with the whole "its a trick question" bs. However, I dont think any one thing lead to its huge sales. It was a factor of many things.

Firstly, it was James Cameron. It got alot of publicity just from that, the director of Titanic, Terminator and Aliens. I know I was hugely hyped for this movie as I think Aliens and Terminator are incredible movies. I also really enjoyed Titanic.

Next of course is the visuals. The movie does look incredible. The hype about it being 3d and all that also played into this.

There are other factors but what is your point? Lots of movies do tremendously well in the box office and aren't really that good. Transformers II did really well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. The Transformers movies have made shit loads of money and, unlike Avatar, they are legitimately terrible movies that diminish the human experience by their very existence.

Avatar is merely bland and generic in everything but the visual department.

if the special effects were merely meh it would have been just another big-budget extravaganza with a meh plot. But it was significantly better than that, and the idea that a group of people who represent the science fiction community would not view a movie with the most realized alien world thus far committed to screen being better than a low-budget 3-room play adaptation...that's pretty sad.

It's just mostly a question of what you think an award like the Hugo should be for I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original script for Avatar actually sounds a lot better, but wouldn't have translated as well.

You know, it does sound like a better movie. Still not, you know, great, but better.

And while some stuff would need to be cut, not as much as was cut I think. It's like they cut all the character and thematic stuff to leave room for more spectacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while some stuff would need to be cut, not as much as was cut I think. It's like they cut all the character and thematic stuff to leave room for more spectacle.
Sadly, in general I think spectacle invites repeat viewing and DVD sales. Better plots don't tend to.

Oh my god, that was HILARIOUS! Please, teach me to be as funny as you!!!
Okay. First, don't be a giant internet douchebag. Second, don't ask questions on internet forums as random parables or aphorisms.

Third, make fun of other people's stupid spelling mistakes.

Fourth, don't take yourself too seriously.

Fifth, and I can't stress this enough, don't refer to episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer as "works of art".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spelling mistake is when you write the word in a wrong way. Adding an extra letter is called a "typo". And the question was neither parable, nor an aphorism, nor particularly random. I've explained what I mean in the following paragraph. Next - I don't take myself too seriously, but that doesn't mean I like to be sidetracked in an argument by witty comments on typos. No, wait... now that I think about it, that IS taking myself too seriously. Oh, well, I'm self-conscious that way. And Buffy is among the greatest achievements of television, period, which has, obviously, nothing to do with this topic. And since you've either not seen the show, or watched random episodes out of order (which doesn't work with this particular piece), I don't feel any urge to argue with you whether it's a work of art or not.

@ Grogsmash: I was not being smug, just playful :P And yes, I was expecting more or less this answer. It is partially true too, only... not really. I was actually going to give the Transformers example myself. It was a ridiculously successful movie. And it generated less than a billion. Avatar got THREE billion. You don't make that kind of box-office on hype alone, as hype survives only throughout the first few weeks. After that, if the movie isn't good, no amount of hype can make people watch it again. And you do need repeat viewings for that kind of box-office. True, the fact that the IMAX ticket costs more, plus the technology which simply doesn't allow for piracy, played a part, and not a very small one. But in the end, a mindless overhyped movie can only go as far as Transformers 2 did, and that's if it's done extremely well. To not double, but more than triple such a result can not be achieved by a movie that is "just visuals", and anyone who has some general understanding of how box-office is generated would agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To not double, but more than triple such a result can not be achieved by a movie that is "just visuals", and anyone who has some general understanding of how box-office is generated would agree with me.

So can you now agree that you are just trying to be smug, since you just said that if we don't agree with you we must not have any understanding of how box-office is generated?

Let me just include a quote from the wikipedia analysis...

Though analysts have been unable to agree that Avatar's success is attributable to one primary factor, several explanations have been advanced.

Interestingly, none of the possible explanations they list are that it is just 3 times as good as Transformers(though I grant you it is). They mainly talk about hype, time when it was released, the new Imax generating more revenue and some other related things.

Also, my point about Transformers is it is an absolutely HORRIBLE movie with no redeeming qualities. It's visuals are poor, it has no plot, the acting is horrible. Yet it made 1/3rd as much revenue as Avatar. So yeah, revenue means little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not being smug, just using indefensible suppositions falsely presented as facts ^_^

But never mind that. I am pretty sure that all the explanations about why the movie is successful are valid. They just don't explain why it is that successful, and how it could go almost twice as high as the previous record-holder - one, which, if memory serves, came out before the advent of the torrent age. Revenue within certain parameters really doesn't mean much. Revenue that staggeringly colossal on the other hand, speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spelling mistake is when you write the word in a wrong way. Adding an extra letter is called a "typo".
Actually to trump your lame pedanticness, a typo is when you spell a word incorrectly using a typewriter like device. if I spell your name Rolandt, it's still a spelling error. Just as much as adding another l to spelll would make it a spelling mistake.

But hey, I like Avatart. The two Na'vi, one cup was especially inspired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a crime to call garbage garbage. Avatar is garbage. Twilight has a better plot.

Hahaha. This.

But Moon was at least interesting. Haven't seen UP and probably never will. All the other movies on that list suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope windup girl comes out on kindle soon.

Up seemed weaker than some of the other cartoons of late and not so late.

It has been available from webscription for quite a while already. No DRM and available in multiple formats.

Of course webscription is known as the Baen store, but luckily they also have work from some other publishers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. The Transformers movies have made shit loads of money and, unlike Avatar, they are legitimately terrible movies that diminish the human experience by their very existence.

Avatar is merely bland and generic in everything but the visual department.

You now, I feel horrible for defending Transformers, but I was able to sort of blank out everything except some cool looking robots and get more enjoyment out of transformers than Avatar.

Avatar was so immenesly hyped I have never experienced anything like that. Even if I hadn't watched TV or seen trailers or what not, everyone was talking about it.

Then it came, and it was so massively dull and disappointing. I felt like I wasted those hours of my life, while I'll happily leave Transformers on in the background for some explosions and stuff. I guess it never occurred to me that Transformers ought to be a movie with any type of plot. Avatar, on the other hand, claims to be so much more than that, and I think this is where it fails so hard.

Also, its cutesyness just got on my nerves so badly. Yuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...