Rare enthusiasm brings together the participation enthusiasm of the middle class all over the world. However, this is definitely not magic: the director who makes miracles, the revolutionary digital technology, the magnificent production budget, and the reasons that can be cited are impeccable. Of course, this can only ensure that we are seated in the theater with our dreams-undoubtedly, both the supply and demand sides of the market have shown perfect rationality.
The projector began to scroll frame by frame. Unlike the simple colors and light and shadow in the past, a "real space" through the 3D glasses on the bridge of the nose, imprinted the unspeakable splendor in the optic nerve. This is the key to understanding how this film has caused such waves. Before that, we were only vaguely curious about the "greatness" of the film, and it would be transformed into a heartfelt shock and condensed in the visual stimulation. In the praise of the comments, it is sublimated as the source of creativity for CG producers and graphics card sellers.
Except for "great", it seems that there is no more suitable vocabulary to describe its meaning. This is really the worst of times. The "greatness" I can hear comes from overwhelming public opinion. In the gorgeous consumption of this visual feast, the only logic for the "revolutionary initiative" of the production team to be "great" is that Wanshuang's eyes were shocked by the unparalleled "greatness". Let's save the fancy description and venting admiration. The one that lasts for 160 minutes is an out-and-out nerve impulse-it is more direct and quicker than sex, because there is no foreplay and flirting, waiting for Ermon" secretion.
When we praised enthusiastically, but it was difficult to pick up Huizhu except for a sentence of "greatness", in fact, the movie itself did not give us the ambiguity of being ashamed. We know from childhood fairy tales that Pandora is synonymous with alluring things. The magnificent planet is of course placed in the Sirius galaxy four light-years away. The exoskeleton used for combat dates back to the science fiction novel "Starship Paratroopers" in the 1950s. ”Has matured, and the mother ship named “Banshee” has even been used more than once in Japanese anime. The advantage of simplifying the setting is that we don't have to speculate and distort the original meaning of the story with an attitude of research evidence.
For this reason, the lack of story itself has become appropriate and reasonable. Americans have long abandoned the rigorous and grand sci-fi spirit. In the wave of mass consumption, the label of "sci-fi" has degenerated into the attributive of a dead house, replaced by a series of ambiguities such as "epic", "magnificent", "shock", etc. But the tempting advertisement, after all, the market is the decisive direction of the film industry. In order to reasonably render the colors of the future and add points to the vision, the director and screenwriter also added some sci-fi condiments: borrowing from the scientists in the film, the concept of "planetary life networking" is quite interesting; another setting "Unobtainium" ore It uses a witty word-building method. These two representative descriptions are only noticed under the exaggerated number modification-of course, we will not stick to this crude American logic.
Someone compares "Princess Mononoke" with "Avatar", trying to explain the common naturalism. This is obviously a big deal: the movie is nothing more than reappearing the history of the American Great Westward Movement and the conflict with the natives in an overhead futuristic style. For this reason, we can tolerate human beings who can travel between stars and still use kinetic energy weapons to kill; we can ignore human beings who walk out of the earth and face alien races without the sense of tolerance that a globalized society should have. Compared with conservatism, we may be more tolerant of the dumb omissions in science fiction. I can't help but ask: Does this lack of description and conservativeness cater to our increasingly lazy imagination?
I admit, but as far as the film itself is concerned, the producer who simplified the problem was not at fault in principle. The problem is just an idealized humanistic orientation that derives my criticism: "The Matrix" at the beginning of this century is also commercial. A strong blockbuster, but with a cynical attitude to explore the philosophy of survival of the network society; Shuai Tang and Spielberg's "Minority Report" at the same time is the most successful image display of the logic of "rewriting the future"; Cameron's own " "Terminator" also simply appeals to the paradox of artificial intelligence and grandfather; the early "Blade Runner" uses obscure methods to tell a heavy story of clone self-identity; not to mention Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey "A large-scale exploration of civilization." Abandoning the universal discussion of the possibilities in the future, the future of science fiction movies can only be an extremely rich and empty symbol for movie viewers.
The discussion about the future has always been fragmentary. But as long as there is rigorous logic and forward-looking thinking, touching sparks will be able to flash. More than half a century ago, Asimov's "Psychological History" and the Three Laws of Robots pushed the future of technology and philosophy to unprecedented heights; domestic Liu Cixin also explained interstellar civilization in his best-selling works. The ultimate law. Their stories can be blunt or even naive, but the author's thinking based on historical outlook and scientific literacy is the eternal driving force for the sublimation of science fiction into art.
Back to the topic of business. This symbol has been so closely tied to the market. From game developers to luxury brands that shine at the premiere conference, commercial tentacles direct the entire process of the film from planning to release. This complex chain has begun. agitation. This somewhat pales our pursuit of the "greatness" of the film itself-in fact, the starting point is self-interested. Let's take a look at the "revolution" of production: Redrock and Sony's high-definition digital cameras have become the collections of many technical directors. Motion capture technology has previously made the Grum in "Lord of the Rings" extraordinarily alive. 3D shooting technology was invented in the 19th century and gradually matured in the 1980s. Cameron and his team are committed to the practical application of these cutting-edge cutting-edge products, and what supported him to sharpen his sword for fourteen years was the film contract that brought the Japanese animation "Gunmen" onto the screen.
I can't deny the fact that the word "great" is true and credible. Cameron has the same technical complex as George Lucas and Peter Jackson. As a typical 20th century director, their courage to challenge new technologies is heartbreaking, which is undoubtedly a kind of "creating greatness" spirit. But we should also be the logic behind the "greatness" of things. In terms of the movie itself, the poor imagination of "Avatar" has made it lose the foundation of being a great movie. For this, I am more inclined to believe that this era is incompetent. The rival materialized ideology shackled it, but the magnificent world refused to be truly breathtaking. In 2009, which just ended, 3G, cloud computing and the Internet of Things have officially opened the curtain of industrialization. I believe that within ten years, a brand-new interconnected world will begin to interfere with all forms of our existence.
At midnight of the premiere, we all lingered in the magnificence of "Avatar". Instead of indulging in it may be a better choice: look at what a great era we are in!
View more about Avatar reviews
