The issue is that the ratio of mindless, popcorn movies to well-written, thought provoking ones is staggeringly unbalanced. Films are less and less about art and more about making money. Whereas films were once a collaborative, artistic effort to tell a story that was meaningful and iconic, they're now dedicated to shoving as much flashy bullshit their computers can produce down your throat.
There are those rare cases where the special fx aren't there purely to make up for the lack of story/substance, I'll cite Bladerunner as a good example. The movie wasn't made purely to try out new movie-making technology or to squeeze the hapless masses for every penny they're worth. Even if it totally flopped at the box office, it would still be worth just as much as a movie. It tells a meaningful story with artful effectiveness through metaphor and skilled acting, it makes you think, and it just happens to take place in a cool, cyberpunk neo-futuristic environment. The story is what carries the film, not the fx. The core of a film can survive in any environment if it's done right, the eye candy is just a bonus. When a movie relies entirely on what little story there is to be embedded in eye-raping visuals, then it's no better than a pop-up book is it? At least a pop-up book is cheaper and knows it's fucking place.
Avatar is a prime example considering it's essentially just Dances with Wolves. The story is still just as interesting (and a bit better imo) without the indians being blue giants, and the colonialists being war-mongers with gunships and robot suits. In this way, Avatar isn't necessarily a bad movie, just an unoriginal one.
|