Really...I don't get it. There is no character development, a plot that could be written on a cocktail napkin in triplicate....I just thought this was no better than an average war movie.

Why do people love it so?

I haven't watched it, but... why must characters be developed?

And maybe it was brilliantly directed and put together?

Unless it's a movie about a bear, you can't not develop characters.

Some characters are meant to be cardboard characters. If the movie is not about characters but about drawing out certain important themes, then it might not matter if the characters are cardboard characters.

Some characters are meant to be cardboard characters. If the movie is not about characters but about drawing out certain important themes, then it might not matter if the characters are cardboard characters.

That's like asking why ingredients in a pasta have to be tasty if the chef's main goal is to focus on presentation. The ingredients still have to taste good.

The filming itself was a brilliant work of art in a way. The building of suspence, at times you genuinly felt like you were there, I especially liked the use of whatever they did to create the sensation of tinnitus to keep you on the edge. The plot itself was still fairly reasonable especially when you compare it to the films it was up against- for instance whilst i enjoyed avatar it was effectively a future version of Pocahontas.

The film had many different levels I found, on one hand it was just a simple war film but it was also quite a bit more depending on your perspective.

Compared to Avatar any movie has a great plot and such. I only saw about half of the hurt locker and it didn't impress me much or hold my interest. District 9 was a better movie.

guess the innovative thing was the switch between bromance/action/suspense/standig in front of a huge aisle with cereals/removed from reality wanna-do-gooder who gets killed/"meeting the natives"/and sniper action.

not that any of that went anywhere (ooh! meta commentary on aisles of cereal, think about it!) and it was not my kind of movie.

might have won because of the first chick to receive an oscar for directing which is perfectly fine and in itself a good enough reason to award that movie. surely beats any reason why you'd give it to pocahontas in space.

That's like asking why ingredients in a pasta have to be tasty if the chef's main goal is to focus on presentation. The ingredients still have to taste good.

I'm not saying that it can have poorly-conceived characters and be none the worse for it. But characters that are not developed can be fine as they are. To refine your gastronomic analogy, it's like saying a dish doesn't have to be seasoned if the point is to enjoy the natural taste.

I guess I didn't notice the suspensefulness so much. Might have been that I disliked the character enough to hope he'd blow his dumb ass up.

I'm not saying that it can have poorly-conceived characters and be none the worse for it. But characters that are not developed can be fine as they are. To refine your gastronomic analogy, it's like saying a dish doesn't have to be seasoned if the point is to enjoy the natural taste.

I suppose I can't imagine or remember a good movie with non-developed characters aside from stuff like Baraka and "The Bear" (which were great)

I suppose I can't imagine or remember a good movie with non-developed characters aside from stuff like Baraka and "The Bear" (which were great)

Yeah, people are more used to the character development thing and intuitively look for it, although I think they watch more movies with no real character development than they perhaps realise! ;)

Yeah, people are more used to the character development thing and intuitively look for it, although I think they watch more movies with no real character development than they perhaps realise! ;)

You mean like Transformers 2?

You mean like Transformers 2?

Mmm... yeah, probably. But I was busy trying to make out if there was a coherent plot to pay much attention.

Mmm... yeah, probably. But I was busy trying to make out if there was a coherent plot to pay much attention.Paying attention to the plot when you have Megan Fox in Daisy Dukes...what's wrong with you kids these days?

Paying attention to the plot when you have Megan Fox in Daisy Dukes...what's wrong with you kids these days?

Meh, not into Megan Fox at all. And even if I thought she was the hottest thing, she wouldn't be able to rescue the godawfulness that was the movie. After all, it's not just one mega long shot of Megan Fox. There are actually various irritating characters and mind-blowingly bad plot lines that often take precedence on screen.

Anyway, there's an example of a horrible movie with underdeveloped cardboard characters.

How about an example of a good one? (That isn't "The Bear" or "Baraka" or anything like that;))

How about an example of a good one? (That isn't "The Bear" or "Baraka" or anything like that;))

I can't think of anything right now. 2001: Space Odyssey?

Usually the protagonist is developed somewhat, since that's usually important for holding the audience's interest. But it may be the protagonist/antagonist and a whole host of undeveloped characters.

Meh, not into Megan Fox at all. And even if I thought she was the hottest thing, she wouldn't be able to rescue the godawfulness that was the movie. After all, it's not just one mega long shot of Megan Fox. There are actually various irritating characters and mind-blowingly bad plot lines that often take precedence on screen.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YpKgmE2pNGw/Sdlt2C7kJaI/AAAAAAAAAJY/m2Uk6TfVd0o/s400/irony+meter.jpg
don't take life too seriously, and really don't take the Transformers too seriously.

I can't think of anything right now. 2001: Space Odyssey?

Usually the protagonist is developed somewhat, since that's usually important for holding the audience's interest. But it may be the protagonist/antagonist and a whole host of undeveloped characters.

Well, HAL is one of the main characters, and he gets a decent amount of development on screen.. Dave is a bit underdeveloped, I agree. I would also argue that the "aliens" are the 3rd main character in the movie, although they are never shown on screen.

It's a bit of a bizarre movie, and I'd almost call it an exception to the rule.. Kubrick is able to somehow able to take what would usually be a bore-fest and make it into a good movie. There aren't many characters and somehow he makes it work.

I guess my point is that most movies with non-developed characters suck. You need developed characters - unless you're a genius like Kubrick, in which case you might be able to pull it off ;)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YpKgmE2pNGw/Sdlt2C7kJaI/AAAAAAAAAJY/m2Uk6TfVd0o/s400/irony+meter.jpg
don't take life too seriously, and really don't take the Transformers too seriously.

Huh, you take life seriously as long as you don't like Megan Fox or can't enjoy Transformers 2? :confused:

Well, HAL is one of the main characters, and he gets a decent amount of development on screen.. Dave is a bit underdeveloped, I agree. I would also argue that the "aliens" are the 3rd main character in the movie, although they are never shown on screen.

It's a bit of a bizarre movie, and I'd almost call it an exception to the rule.. Kubrick is able to somehow able to take what would usually be a bore-fest and make it into a good movie. There aren't many characters and somehow he makes it work.

I guess my point is that most movies with non-developed characters suck. You need developed characters - unless you're a genius like Kubrick, in which case you might be able to pull it off ;)

Well, it's not a question of genius per se. I guess it's a question of genre or style. I agree, though, that movies that don't rely on characters to drive them forward are difficult to make interesting. So that's where the genius comes in.

I'll check out Hurt Locker some time to see if it pulls that off.

Huh, you take life seriously as long as you don't like Megan Fox or can't enjoy Transformers 2? :confused:

No, you take life too seriously if you read my comment on Megan Fox and don't see I am being ironic. If someone posts a thread attacking the artistic credibility of a serious film, then goes on to suggest that a hot chick in shorts is a good reason to like a movie, the odds are pretty overwhelming that you're looking at someone making a joke.

Well, it's not a question of genius per se. I guess it's a question of genre or style. I agree, though, that movies that don't rely on characters to drive them forward are difficult to make interesting. So that's where the genius comes in.

I'll check out Hurt Locker some time to see if it pulls that off.

Yeah, I haven't seen it either. What the hell are we doing talking in this thread? :lol:

Yeah, I haven't seen it either. What the hell are we doing talking in this thread? :lol:Methinks they doth quote from non-oral orifices. Or you just wondered what the fuss was about, and figured you might get some intelligent commentary here. hah!

No, you take life too seriously if you read my comment on Megan Fox and don't see I am being ironic. If someone posts a thread attacking the artistic credibility of a serious film, then goes on to suggest that a hot chick in shorts is a good reason to like a movie, the odds are pretty overwhelming that you're looking at someone making a joke.

And I don't see why my response is bad. I guess I chose to offer a comment in return rather than just chuckle to myself at the wittiness :dunno:

Methinks they doth quote from non-oral orifices. Or you
just wondered what the fuss was about, and figured you might get some intelligent commentary here. hah!

Well, we might not have watched it, but I came here to see what your comments about the movie are to see if it's worth my time. And I simply don't think that lack of character development necessarily makes it so bad, so I was hoping you'd elaborate.