Avatar

Any person who watches this movie will immediately be drawn to it because of the great special effects and atmosphere. These are two things that Avatar does especially well, and in many ways, is awesome because of it. There is no doubt to the quality and effort that makes up the technical aspects of this movie. There is no doubt to the entertainment value of this movie. Neither should there be any doubt whether the creative collaboration of this film created something genuinely effecting and unique. This was an excellent movie in many ways, and in many ways a revolutionary film. It had memorable moments, riveting drama, and incidences of suspense. Perhaps it was a graphical masterpiece of computerized film technology, and an excellent example of a realized vision. But it isn't "An awesome work of art". My opponent would like you to believe it's many elements create an opportunity for a greater discussion at the philosophies of the universe. But any movie can create those discussions if you want them to. My opponent argues that its special effects are revolutionary. They may be right now, but in enough time, special effects of the past, will no longer lead us to consider something an awesome work of art. My opponent argues that this film's collaborative effort should count towards the criteria, and should the cost of art ultimately determine arts value, he might be right. I have based much of my argument attempting to marginalize the plot and characters of Avatar. Until now, I have mostly relied upon the readers thinking my arguments were funny, or actually correct. To avoid any further confusion between the two, I shall submit the viewpoints of some movie reviewers. So, here's some credible anti-avatar propaganda: "As the film's technical marvels grow commonplace, it will look like a clunky old theme-park attraction, a Captain EO for our time. " "On a story level, Cameron has invested the bare minimum necessary to call Avatar into existence, and while there's no doubting his meticulousness, the film is more demo than drama. " - Scott Tobias (The A. V. Club)[1] "…Would be great fun, if only Cameron -- the picture's writer, director, producer and editor -- had a sense of humor about himself, which he clearly doesn't. " "…This isn't a picture fleshed out with deep, multifaceted ideas" - Stephanie Zacharek (Salon. com)[2] "…There's also a lot of eye-rollingly silly stuff. " "…Clears the hurdle in terms of being optical candy. Its story, though, is pure cheese. " "This could be called a classical structure; it could also be called lazy" "The CGI world of "Avatar" is indeed like nothing you've ever seen. Too bad its corniness is so familiar. - Joe Neumaier (New York Daily News) Avatar gained 83 on Metacritic, though that isn't a definite source for what is awesome art, you have to ask yourself, would "an awesome work of art" get an 83 on Metacritic? [4] The following illustrates my opponent's criteria, regarding what makes Avatar an "awesome work of art: A) "The Manhattan Project"-like collaborative effort. B) Revolutionary special effects C) Epic, Thematic Depth The burden of proof is upon my opponent to prove that Avatar is "An Awesome work of art". I believe I have dismissed all of his criteria, as well as made the case that Avatar, while being a quality movie, is significantly lacking in certain aspects. Therefore, my opponent has failed to prove that Avatar is "an AWESOME work of art" This has been an interesting experience. I wish my opponent well and thank him for a fun debate. Vote Con [1] . http://www.avclub.com... [2]. http://www.salon.com... [3] . http://www.nydailynews.com... [4] . http://www.metacritic...