Am I the only one who dislikes these “visual spectacle” movies

Home // Forums // Movies // Am I the only one who dislikes these “visual spectacle” movies

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
Created
4 years ago
Last Reply
4 years ago
9
replies
296
views
9
users
1
1
1
  • Tyler The Awesome Guy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 19th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113589

    In 2009, Avatar rolled around. I found it to be overrated, despite the fact that it looked awesome.

    In 2012, Life of Pi was released. I found it to be overrated, despite the fact that it additionally looked pretty cool (though I found Richard Parker to look a little hokey)

    With Gravity getting released, I am not anticipating it as much as everyone else is, thinking that it looks overrated (how can you tell a story in space, there’s not really a heck of a lot of options to go with, you roll around in space, scream, go into the space shuttle, roll, scream, go back in the shuttle, rinse, repeat), but I have been wrong before, in 2011, I thought Hugo was going to suck, but I loved that movie.

    Anyone thinks these “visual spectacle movies” as I call them are just overhyped.

    Reply
    delerian
    Member
    Joined:
    Feb 21st, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113591

    It is a balancing act. What do you think a movie is? 1) Do you think it is moving pictures? 2) Or is it a type of recorded play? 3) Or maybe it is an acted novel? I think how you identify with a movie will have a significant impact on how you perceive a “visual spectacle”. To me, a movie is an equal balance of #1-3, but still remains a completely unique art form. The visual spectacle part is essential, in my opinion, since a film is partially a visual art form. 2001: A Space Odyssey nails this perfectly for me. And as long as the visual spectacle is in balance with the plot and the presentation, it works. Avatar didn’t work for me. I think that film was too far out of balance.

    Just my 2 cents.

    ReplyCopy URL
    BrokenFan
    Member
    Joined:
    Nov 16th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113592

    Visual aspect of the film works when it works. Space Odyssey for me was a visual/auditory experience and it worked, especially for a movie with essentially no plot, or at least a discernable one, because those two elements went very well with each other. 

    Avatar to me was just a fad. People were wowed by the vibrant 3D images in the theatre, as indicated by the box office, and other movies followed in its footsteps and were converted to 3D to achieve a bigger box office on an otherwise underwhelming films. Technial achievement? sure, but there wasn’t anything to complement that visual aspect of the movie to elevate it to the likes of something like Space Odyssey. 

    So in conclusion, I don’t hate the ‘visual experience’, but it can’t be just that.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    CAROL-CHANNING
    Member
    Joined:
    Sep 30th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113593

    I mean, it all depends on what interests you as a person.  I know nothing about special effects, so I really am not good at fully understanding how impressive or technologically advanced something is.  If it doesn’t look like a story I would enjoy, I don’t wanna see it.  Period.  But I know some people who go and see movies BECAUSE the visual effects and/or animation looks impressive.  To each his own.  I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar (despite it having some awful dialogue), and LOVED Life of Pi (I expected to be bored by it, but was incredibly surprised.)  Gravity could have been made in someone’s basement with cardboard sets and I would still be interested in seeing it just because the story looks fascinating.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    Jake
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 2nd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113594

    You never know what you’ll get. “Avatar” certainly did look impressive but was boring, too long and was basically a rip-off of “Pocahontas” (only less interesting). Characters were more one-note than in any previous Cameron’s films. “Life of Pi” had some great scenes and images but f*ked up the end with all added philosophy and alternative version. I liked it enough but many people left theater disappointed and slightly bored. In the end I regretted I didn’t decide to watch “The Impossible” instead as it was running at the same time. Visual aspects can be amazing but when story doesn’t hold up, I won’t enjoy it. That being said I’m all excited for “Gravity” simply because of Cuaron who did mesmerazing work on “Children of Men”. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    PJ Edwards
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 2nd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113595

    No you aren’t the only one. It’s not that I don’t like them, I don’t like the overadulation fo them. I’d rather be engrossed in a powerful performance in a rinky dink theater then furtheing the studio cabal of overinflated ticket prices for a gimmick. It’s even mroe egregious this year because Gravity was a post coversion 3D. Might as well pop Wrath of the Titans. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113596

    In 2009, Avatar rolled around. I found it to be overrated, despite the fact that it looked awesome.

    In 2012, Life of Pi was released. I found it to be overrated, despite the fact that it additionally looked pretty cool (though I found Richard Parker to look a little hokey)

    With Gravity getting released, I am not anticipating it as much as everyone else is, thinking that it looks overrated (how can you tell a story in space, there’s not really a heck of a lot of options to go with, you roll around in space, scream, go into the space shuttle, roll, scream, go back in the shuttle, rinse, repeat), but I have been wrong before, in 2011, I thought Hugo was going to suck, but I loved that movie.

    Anyone thinks these “visual spectacle movies” as I call them are just overhyped.

    “Am I the only one who dislikes these “visual spectacle” movies” ?

    I hope so. Personally I have no such bias.     

    ReplyCopy URL
    Scottferguson
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 26th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113597

    Like any other kind of movies, there can be good and bad. Visual effects movies go back to the birth of the medium (the Melies Brothers, A Trip to the Moon (1903) and numerous others. They are a special kind of movie when done right.

    These days, too often they can take the place of other important cinematic elements, and like any other device can be overused. But James Cameron is one director who is able to combine this with other elements (for me brilliantly in Titanic, more unevenly in Avatar). :agree that Life of Pi was too much of an FX movie, with little else going on (some of the scenes are borderline amateurish in their direction).

    But I prefer to think of the great uses. My biggest concern is that too many mediocre ones are successful and they drown out more character and narrative driven films.

    ReplyCopy URL
    GoMe91
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 25th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113598

    Personally, I like “realistic fiction”/indie-like movies the best. But I honestly don’t have a problem with “visual spectacles.” I thought Life of Pi was excellent. And I think Avatar got all the Oscar nominations it deserved (it’s not like it was nominated for screenplay). In fact, I think Gravity is the “Oscar contender” I’m looking the most forward to seeing (although, I really like Sandra Bullock).

    ReplyCopy URL
    AviChristiaans
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 26th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #113599

    With Gravity getting released, I am not anticipating it as much as everyone else is, thinking that it looks overrated (how can you tell a story in space, there’s not really a heck of a lot of options to go with, you roll around in space, scream, go into the space shuttle, roll, scream, go back in the shuttle, rinse, repeat), but I have been wrong before, in 2011, I thought Hugo was going to suck, but I loved that movie.

    Well, there you have it. I think the whole premise (or one of them) of your disliking of “visual spectacle movies” lies in the fact that you either believe there can’t be a story attached to it, or the story that is told isn’t worth telling.

    Visual effects (and more so 3D ) actually enhance the storytelling when it is used correctly. 3D works by accentuating depth with differential motion of the picture, and makes it look and “feel” realistic.  The Great Gatsby is a great example, where without visual effects or 3D aspects, the film wouldn’t have been realistic in conveying the feel of the era, the color and overall art direction of the film.

    Gravity does have a story line, and a realistic one as such. It’s not a film about aliens…..or has a Star Trek -like layer. It’s about astronauts in space experiencing disastereous malfunctions in their work environment, and how they as astronauts handle and ultimately cope with these circumstances.
    Space science and astronomy is and has  been part of our lives for hundreds of years. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands, and is as rellevant in everyday life as breathing. Astronauts will be able to relate to the whole story being laid out. It’s as real to them as Abraham Lincoln ruling America all those years ago, or the  seals that took down Osama Bin Laden, etc.

     Hundreds of people have gone to space, and still do. Things happen, and well known disasters in space (and space related disasters) have occured. People have  died, meteors have fallen to earth etc.

    I absolutely loved Life of Pi. If people read the book, and know the way the story was being conveyed, they would appreciate the way special effects and 3D brought the whole story to life, made the whole story as real and mythical as in the book. 3D made the film as close and realistic to the book as possible. (The main scenes were filmed in a huge swimming pool, but the actual story took place in the middle of the ocean. He wasn’t sitting in a bath tub or swimming pool, we was out in the middle of the ocean with a tiger in a boat. Experiencing wonders and beautiful mythical wonders around him. Visual and special effects [3D conversions] made that possible.)

     And with Gravity being filmed in 3D, it will only make space seem and “look” real. 

    Just my thoughts.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
Reply To: Am I the only one who dislikes these “visual spectacle” movies

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Spenser... - Aug 16, 2017
Movies
Tegan - Aug 16, 2017
Movies