Sky Captian and the World of Tomorrow

[EUOL]

You may see a movie as mostly story, SE, but I see story as equally important to visuals.  We can laude a movie that has a 'great story' (Read--an 'important' story) but not great visuals, but we look snidely at one that tries things the other way.  

Be careful.  When you weigh something like A BEAUTIFUL MIND as being far more important than something like THE FIFTH ELEMENT simply because the subject matter is more 'real,' you're siding with the crowd that places James Joyce above modern fantasy.

[Lieutenant Kije]

I didn't mean to stir up the hornet's nest (he he.)  I just thought the image of enormous air carriers emblazoned witht he Union Jack sending out flight after flight of fighter planes, set aganist a sky romanitcally populated with fluffy clouds, was the coolest visual I've picked up from film lately.

As for the acting, I like Jude Law and Gwynneth Paltrow and (crossing my fingers) would like to believe that they could pull it off if anyone could.  Angelina Jolie...well, here's hoping for the best.

I guess I don't see the idea as so out-and-out ridiculous as to ruin it like some do.  I liked the movie Iron Giant which would appear to be fairly similar in setting and conventions, if not in theme.  So I think I will be able to enjoy Sky Captain.

[House of Mustard]

But if we're saying that story is equal to visuals, then Fifth Element just doesn't make the cut.  Visually, it is neat.  (With the exception of one scene, I don't remember it being all that visually impressive, but I admit I was not watching it from a art direction perspective.)  But the story is weak.  Yes, it has a few ideas, but they're nothing profound or new.  Instead, they're bland.

You say it's really good for what it is.  If you're saying, basically, that Fifth Element is really nice-to-look-at escapsim, I'll agree with you.  But like I said, I can't really see it as a masterpiece.

I'm certainly not trying to relegate fantasy or science fiction to a lesser category.  I think some of the best movies out there are sci-fi/fantasy.  But this one is NOT one of the best movies.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, though.  With all the praise that this movie seems to get, especially from EUOL, I wonder if I am fully grasping what you're referring to.  Are you, as I have long thought, setting Fifth Element up as one of the cinema's finest?  Or are you simply saying that it's one of your favorite movies to pop in the DVD player, and watch with a bunch of friends?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Actually, I don't htink that comparison is valid. I think that any book that has a story -- Y'know, ANY story -- is an improvement over what I know about Joyce. Seriously, though, while I do prefer fantasy in my genre pickings, I don't think that a book is inherently better because it is fantasy even if the fantasy is poorly done. If they did a hack job, they did a hack job no matter what the genre. (it's a different matter if both books are "equally well written" -- then, of course, the fantasy book is better... at least to me).

I don't think that the comparison between the two ideas holds merit. Thinking that a movie with both good visuals and good story is inherently better than a movie with just one or the other is obvious. The movie has the capacity for all of the above, better movies will have made use of all these elements -- regardless of what the fundamental story elements are.

When I said I feel story is more important, I was admiting a personal bias, which I was attempting to point out didn't truly affect my ideas. It doesn't make sense to then take that bias and use it to attack my thesis, which I've said is unrelated. YEs, my bias is for story over spectacle. I PREFER story, myself. But objectively, a movie with story and poorly handled spectacle is no better than a movie with glorious visual and no story. Blair Witch Project isn't the best example in the world, but it's what springs to mind. It COULD have been a good story (almost... this experiement didn't work in my mind). But the camera work, ick! The jumpy, scattered filming, representing an actual amateur documentary, I suppose, did nothing to enhance the mood. It didn't make it feel any more real to me, it just made me think it was a shoddy production. I would have almost forgiven that crap ending if they had given me a film I could pay attention to.

So don't get me wrong. I do not reject the importance of spectacle. even less so when I try to objectively review a film.

And if it helps at all, I feel the same way about comics. I don't like looking at poorly drawn comics, but I'm much more likely to forgive that if I can get into the writing. However, I can also point at something like Riddle of the Beast and say "look how visually interesting that is" (of course, I'm still incapable of leaving off the "too bad the plot is a load of dung"). It's a shame to me that many films and comics are ignoring the spectacle completely. There are some very poor artists getting fame because they're connected with a successful comic.  That only hurts the industry.

In fact, ideally, in film and comic, both, the story and the visual should serve to enhance each other. The visuals you should should have meaning to the story, and do more than look nice. However, the story is being told with a visual format, so, it only makes sense to tell a story that is conducive to powerful visual elements. Make it worth my time to see a movie instead of reading a book. But also make it worth my time to see a movie instead of looking at pictures somewhere. Neither should be completely subordinated to the other, or you've chosen the wrong format, imo.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I didn't mean to stir up the hornet's nest (he he.)

Kije, EUOL and I can argue about ANYTHING, even if we agree on it.

[Lieutenant Kije]

I agree that 5th Element plot = poop.  But I think it's a great spectacle.  That's the only reason I mentioned it in the first place.  And even though the plot is poop, it is still fun to watch (for me,) in a distantly similar way to how I like looking at interesting and beautiful art (a medium where story plays much less of a role.)

[Lieutenant Kije]

I didn't mean to stir up the hornet's nest (he he.)

The above is just a product of my non-confrontational nature making its way into my speech patterns.  I know you guys hash things out all the time.  I just don't have the attention span to join the discussions.  

[EUOL]

But if we're saying that story is equal to visuals, then Fifth Element just doesn't make the cut.

Story and visuals are equal, but I didn't say they're the ONLY things that are important to a movie.  Scoring, style, and acting are all things that are important to movies.  If you're going to watch a movie and judge it based primarily on plot, then what in the devil are you doing watching a movie?  Go read a book.  I watch movies for the OTHER things they can provide.  Yes, plot is important, but it's only one element out of a dozen or so.  

I think 5th Element had a fine plot.  Not groundbreaking, but at least as good as any well-made action movie.  Indiana Jones and Star Wars included.  

You say it's really good for what it is.  If you're saying, basically, that Fifth Element is really nice-to-look-at escapism, I'll agree with you.  But like I said, I can't really see it as a masterpiece.

See, there's that word again.  "Escapism."  Applied to an artistic form, it's as pejorative as a word can get--and I find it a little offensive.  Someone works very hard to produce an impressive piece of art that conveys the emotions, messages, and visually impressive shots that he wants, and the best you can say is that it's nice 'escapism?'  

Art is one of the things that defines human existence, people.  Say that a particular piece doesn't appeal to you.  However (especially in the case of something well-made with a visionary director) don't try and dismiss it as meaningless.  

THIS is what really annoys me about literary snobbery.  It's the sense that if one doesn't like something, that doesn't just make it personally unappealing--it somehow makes it of less value.  Therefore, the people who DO enjoy it are of less value as well.  

You're using the exact same arguments against this movie that people in my program make about my work.

(Sorry, SE.  I'll get to your post in a bit.  Note, also, that SE is right--I often debate because I find it interesting and engaging.  HoM and SE are used to this.  I suggest that no one else take offense.)

[Fellfrosch]

EUOL made an interesting point that I think SE and HoM have overlooked: while a movie should consider story and visuals equally, some movies are appreciable for one over the other--and yet for most people, story inevitably wins over visuals in these cases. I can think of a dozen movies off the top of my head that have stellar stories and acting and yet do absolutely nothing of interest visually-- a good example is Mystic River, which I saw a few weeks ago at Tage's house. People love that movie,and laud that movie, and give Oscars to that movie, and never once complain about the fact that it's visually uninteresting. Then along comes Fifth Element with stellar, exciting visual concepts, and yet people say it's dumb because the story is dumb. Most people are simply more attuned to words than visuals--they are more inclined to like a work that tells them things they've never known than a work that shows them things they've never seen. SE has already admitted that bias, but I would posit that it holds true for the vast majority of people on the forum (and for society at large--why else is literature a required subject throughout early education, yet art is considered optional?).

Ideally, of course, story and visuals will both be equally good--fantasy and science fiction are especially adept at this because of the visual freedom they offer to a director--but that doesn't always happen. All I'm saying is that panning a movie because it weights visuals over story is a little unfair unless you similarly pan any movie that weights story over visuals--a category that probably includes many of your favorite movies.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

well, my thing is I'm not panning it just cuz it looks pretty but empty. I'm panning it because it looks like it's performing an ANTI-homage to a worthy genre. It seems to me that what we've got coming up in this film is  someone  TRYING to do something clever, and failing miserably.

[Fellfrosch]

Which may be true--you've obviously seen more about it than I have and, like I said, I have the same fear that it will suck. I just hope that it won't.

[Maxwell]

I'm gonna go see it when it comes out (on my birthday) it does look incrediblay cool... especially with the iron giant type machinary(same sorta bolted together look)

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

maybe I just have a worse attitude. Ever think of that? Maybe I just hate things too easily!

[Maxwell]

I smell a k-hole...

[Lieutenant Kije]

Maybe I just hate things too easily!

Take your lightsaber!  Strike me down!