Well, now, MsBlack, this is certainly a very stern and abrupt response to my voicing a opinion over something as trivial as a non-Chrono related motion picture. Since you see it as necessary to try to "call me out" on this, I'll respond in turn.
Blah, blah, blah aesthetics means jack shit.
I neither implied nor said anything of the sort. You quoted me saying "I don't care if it looks pretty." Truth be told, I don't. My main reaction here was to the assumed entertainment value based on the aesthetics, and, more importantly, the price tag. I could go on, but I think responding to your other comments will explain enough.
- A film's worth is independent of its aesthetic value
It absolutely is. I'll stand by this 100%. Citizen Kane, the original King Kong and most Charlie Chaplin or Gene Kelley films are horrible looking by modern standards. Does that mean that they have no value? Absolutely not. I'd go as far as to say that the original King Kong had more value, because it was an original rather than a remake of the same story. Picasso's paintings are not pretty, but they definitely have significant artistic value, would you not agree?
Aesthetics can certainly influence the worth of a film, good or bad, but they are still two very independent quantities. My grudge right now with the Avatar movie is that people are ignorign the worth of the story or the acting over "how pretty it looks," i.e., the aesthetics. I put aesthetics on a far lower rung of importance when judging the value of a movie. You're free to disagree, but this is how I judge a film's worth.
- (Thus) A film's worth is independent of its artistic value
Absolutely. I consider Mel Stuart's take on "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" "worth" more than Tim Burton's more recent take. Which one is artistically better? Well...I dunno. Either can be considered aesthetically pleasing, people enjoyed both, and both have a very brilliant cast of actors.
Bear in mind, MsBlack, unlike literature or canvass art, the primary purpose of a motion picture(save for documentaries) is to entertain. There is definitely an artistic streak, as any movie by Tim Burton will show you, but mostly, they're made to entertain people. A movie who's plot is boring, or whose actors have no talent, isn't a very good one, no matter how pretty it is, or how artistic the subtext is. There are those that would say that making it entertaining is an art form, and that that is worth artistic merit, but, quite frankly, I think a film can be one or the other, neither or both.
Jackass was a good movie, but you could hardly say it had any artistic worth. Since the main purpose of a movie is to entertain, rather than have artistic value, I'd say that, once again, the worth of the movie is not solely based on its aesthetics.
- A film's artistic value is independent of how worth you think seeing it is
Yea-Nope. Remember, I'm one person with very different tastes than you. We have a similar bond over Chrono Trigger, but outside of that, who knows? I may not consider something that is "pretty" or "artistic" worth seeing if its boring, or it might be the opposite; I might think something is worth seeing just for the aesthetics or the music. For instance, even if you don't like RPG's, I'd recommend playing Chrono Trigger/Cross simply for the soundtrack that Mitsuda conducted. It is just that amazing. They'd have to be some
very good aesthetics and music for me to do this with something that is utterly boring, but it can happen.
My main gripe with Avatar is, again, the aesthetics is
all people have to comment on. To summarize:
Friend: Dude, you have to see Avatar! It looks effing amazing!
Me: Is the story any good?
Friend: Uhhhh....
Me: Are the characters relateable?
Friend: Uhh...
Me: Is the music score any good? Are the actors suited for their roles?
Friend: Well, that one Latino chick from Lost plays a similar role.
Me:...Not quite what I asked there.
And so you have the cheek to say that you're "not gonna say its a bad movie" when you've declared invalid one of the two grounds upon which it could prove its worth.
Aesthetics is very rarely a valid measure of a film's worth on its own. Avatar may be one of those very rare cases, but I'm not gonna spend good money on an IMax ticket on something that very well may not be worth it. $3 movie rental beats a $17 per person ticket of admission any day. You may call this me being cheap, but I am very attached to what little money I do have.
And so you also make the mistake of conflating seeing the film at a cinema (in 3D or IMax) and seeing it on DVD.
If it doesn't have the story to keep me entertained on my regular old tv, then it isn't worth seeing. It can have all of the artistic value in the world, but it still won't be worth seeing. The change in format should not be that drastic, and if it is, and totally relies on you seeing it in a specific medium, with certain aesthetics, IT IS NOT WORTH SEEING!
Let's see how you backpedal outta this one.
Nope. Sticking where I am.
Moreover, not once did I say that it was not worth seeing. I said that the people going ga-ga over "OOOH, PRETTY" don't give me a good reason to think it's worth seeing. As I said, I'll save my judgment for when I see it myself, on dvd.
