People are entertained by different things. Book readers enjoy good stories, play-goers enjoy good acting, movie-goers can enjoy good stories, good acting, visual artwork and so on.
If one lacks in story or acting, but has a great art style and an immersive culture and environment...some people might like it.
If one lacks in cinematographic quality, but has great plot and great acting, then some people might like it.
What im trying to say is that you can argue why something lacks in either of these dimensions, or why you dont like the proportions a movie might have. But to be a bitching faggot is a whole other deal. You dont have to like something, you dont even have to be nice about it. But..."Avatar is mediocre at best, and anyone who thinks it was amazing is an idiot who is easily amused by pretty colors"...is just fucked up.
"avatar is mediocre at best"
boom, there you go...perfectly sufficient.
I thought transformers and gi joe were terrible...but i was entertained by the action parts. I thought avatar was great, the plot wasnt the most original but i thought the cultural and environmental aspects of the film (not directly related to plot) in addition to the way it was filmed and portrayed were amazing.
I didnt walk into the film with the critical lens that many people like you do, i came to be entertained. There is nothing that can match the movie visually. That is not to say that I think visuals are the most important part of a movie. ex...star wars 456 > 123.
Edited by retrovirus, 24 December 2009 - 11:38 AM.