Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Yes, its your opinion - I think that was Ventriloquist's point, if I read him correctly. I think he was saying that you can't say cinema is dying simply because the movies being presently made aren't to your personal tastes.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
It's na�ve and unfair to compare productions in any medium's "early" and "golden" years, when freshness and anticipation was at a premium, to the recent stuff.
We are at a kind of plateau in all areas of art and recreation, no one has invented a new literature genre since the 30's, no really new ways of painting that isn't a pastiche of an earlier period or just "draw an object but with recycled cans or condoms or snot instead". There was post-mod, post-post-mod and then that's it since, what, early 90's?
Many people I've talked to in the university regarding the regurgigation and pastiche-tendency of the 21st century are not sure we will ever leave this phase, but they are of course also agreed that you can't see or fix the problems experienced at one level of development until you are at the next level, looking back.
I'm hoping proper 3d-development will come soon, which will really make you feel depth in a picture, without giving you brain cancer or migraines. Maybe boners. Yes, doughy as the side effect.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Well if I can't say that it is, then you can't say it isn't. Isn't it better if we both *can* say what we think?
You can think it, you can say it, you just can't be right about it. Film, like all art forms from cave painting to computer games are constantly in flux. They change with the times, as do fashions, tastes and culture in general. Look at Charlie Chaplin films, then look at Gone With The Wind, Seven Samurai, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The French Connection, Children of Men. All very different films, very much the product of their time and the personalities behind them, none of which would have been the same had they been made at any other time by any other people, especially when one generation of films inspires and informs the next. I'm not talking about special effects here, I'm talking about tone, pacing, subtext and above all storytelling. All very different and all very good. Also, at the same time these gems were being made, there was also heaps and heaps of utter shite being produced, it's just over time the vast oceans of crap tend to fade into the background until all you can recall are the classics and are left with the impression that they were typical of their age and that these days it's mostly bollocks. Truth is, it's always been mostly bollocks, it's just easier to recall the more recent bollocks than the older bollocks. Which is pretty much how nostalgia works and can be applied to just about everything from cars to music to architecture and so on and so on.
Oh and calling the LoTR "Mainstream Hollywood films" is about the oddest comment I've heard recently. These films were made by a small, mostly independent New Zealand company that until very recently was know for small independent films and b-movie horror flicks. Gaining studio funding and world wide distribution doesn't make something "mainstream", which is a meaningless label anyway. Was Trainspotting mainstream? What about Fight Club, or Donnie Darko? They all had big studio backing and have been seen all over the world, so I suppose they must be.
posted
I'll say that, despite never having read the books they're based on, I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
As for "mainstream": yes, I would say the LOTR trilogy is "mainstream" precisely because they aren't cult movies like Trainspotting or Donnie Darko. It has less to do with the film company making them, and more to do with their reception worldwide.
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Indeed. When the queen of the prom and captain of the football team are looking forward to the next movie, that's mainstream. (I bout shit my pants when those kind of things happened at my school.)
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: I'll say that, despite never having read the books they're based on, I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
As for "mainstream": yes, I would say the LOTR trilogy is "mainstream" precisely because they aren't cult movies like Trainspotting or Donnie Darko. It has less to do with the film company making them, and more to do with their reception worldwide.
Granted. I suppose I take issue with the term more than anything, as if it implies the film is somehow less artistically valid.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: It's still just my opinion, of course. I'm entitled as much as you.
Just because it's an opinion does not exempt it from requiring logic, facts, reasoning, or common sense to validate it. Just because it's your opinion does not exempt you from the possibility of being wrong.
And also, every movie's creation is unique and just because something is distributed by a studio does not automatically deem it the pejorative "studio film" label. People spend years trying to get the funding and resources to make a movie, whether they end up coming from a studio or not.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Okay, on the subject of what this thread is actually about... WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!?
I didn't enjoy that at all! It started with a reasonable promise of goodness, and the overall time travel plot was reasonably intriguing. But somewhere around where Bender started stealing stuff in history the whole thing went straight to hell and just became depressing. There were occasionally good moments (Nibbler eating the guinea pig comes to mind), but I think where the whole thing failed was that the villains were completely unconvincing. Nudar and his friends pretty well ruined it. I wanted to enjoy that so much...
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well I enjoyed it. More so given that it had Mark Hamill riding around in a tie fighter. Overall it felt like they took elements from several of their most popular episodes and mixed them all together. I could see shades of "Luck of the Fryish" "The Farnsworth Parabox" "Time Keeps on Slippin'" "Jurassic Bark" and even a little of "The Sting". Of course that's all mitigated with the fact that most of those episodes were directly or indirectly referenced. Actually, looking at it again I'm surprised at just how much they managed to fit in without destroying the pace or structure. Very good.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: It's still just my opinion, of course. I'm entitled as much as you.
Just because it's an opinion does not exempt it from requiring logic, facts, reasoning, or common sense to validate it. Just because it's your opinion does not exempt you from the possibility of being wrong.
I disagree with this almost entirely. Those things you list are often beneficial and invaluable to the gaining of a complete appreciation for a work of art, but they are by no means necessary. Humans are often illogical, ignorant, fickle, and reactionary, but that doesn't stop them from having an opinion.
I do not believe that there are any truly objective right or wrong answers concerning the interpretation and evaluation of art. What we all have are our experiences and the tastes and critical sense we develop according to them, all of which are subject to change given the influence of a number of factors.
By my standards, the LOTR trilogy are not good movies. You must judge them by your own. If you do so and come to a different conclusion, that does not mean that one of us is right and the other is wrong. It means we have different standards. This is as it should be. It would be a terribly boring and dreary world if we all agreed about everything.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree with MMoM. It would be an awful thing if we all agreed we had to call the Star Wars movies by their full titles ... like, "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope Special Edition." =)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
