Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 08, 2006, 01:42:59 PM
There was a lot of discussion in the last thread about Evan's taste in movies - Stan and I took him to task. And yeesh - it lasted way too long.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 08, 2006, 03:51:14 PM
Thank you Evan, for telling me how to be entertained by a movie. Until you came down from your gilded throne, I did not realize I was watching movies completely wrong for all these years! Please, lecture us some more! Tell us how wrong we are.
Holy Crap.
Post by: Svevan on October 08, 2006, 05:57:23 PM
Post by: Arbok on October 08, 2006, 06:01:21 PM
Post by: Deguello on October 08, 2006, 07:54:02 PM
Kurosawa sucks! ICE BURN. LEARN ENGLISH, NOOB.
Post by: Pryopizm on October 08, 2006, 08:18:00 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 08, 2006, 08:48:35 PM
I'm a Christian bale fan, and I'll admit that I didn't see anything special at all about Batman Begins. *shrug* I guess you're expectations would've had to have been lowered by one...two... horrible batman movies to see this as the second coming of Bruce Wayne.
When it comes to Batman, Tim Burton and Michael Keaton > All
Listening now...
Bourne Supremacy was AWESOME!!! It WAS a modern male action masterpiece, you're so awesome!
OMG... this is so cool... omg...I need to buy this movie now...
You tell 'em Evan! Who are these guys? Haven't they gone to Film Lit class?
Taxi Driver was cool... hmmm. haven't seen Raging Bull... should I put it on my Netflix?
...LOL...
urgh, I would also call Gangs of New York a Mess, but I wouldn't call it a beautiful one at all.
hmmm.... I saw Gosford Park but...what did I miss?
Oh, Evan! Yay! Just because a movie doesn't appeal to us personally doesn't mean it isn't good, it just means we can't love it! And vice versa!
Ooh! Diss Fight Club! It was an okay movie, but... yeah!
... bah, getting bored...
WHAT?!?! You're a Star Trek fan? ARRRRGHHH DIE DIE DIE! STOP JUSTIFYING IT! SAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!! ARRRRGGGHHH!!! The movies are BAD, not THIS SIDE of bad! ARARGDHBKJQ NSbKFMWn jkDNwhnNkjjIKFAMhfmDa...
I can watch the Star Trek movies and they don't suck... but they're NOWHERE near anything "this side of good."
Hmm...Elephant added to Netflix now.
mmmm... wax poetic Evan! You're awesome! We are always analyzing movies and their grammar and context and content and meaning as we watch them.... ah, but that's right. You can't expect everyone to be able to drink bitter medicine and then take the time to break down its flavor structure. For something to first be of worth to a human being, it must first convince that human being of its usefulness. We can't discount the value of entertainment: we're engineered to be fascinated with things that are important to our lives, especially with movies.
Being entertained is nature's way of telling us to pay attention when our lives aren't in danger.
OOH! Alfondo Cuaron! Added...
Bah, saw Fearless... eh... it was ok. I get the whole "let's make a constructive martial arts movie" thing, but it didn't really catch me.
HAHAHAHA! BATMAN BEGINS! TEAR IT DOWN EVAN! OMG...you're so right! There really was something off about that movie... I enjoyed it being a Christian Bale fan, but aside from that it was...eh...
WHAT? EVAN! You're not looking forward to Nightmare Before Christmas? I am CRY!
Eh, War of the World WAS sort of good, sort of eh, but it wasn't as bad as a normal action movie would've been... and yeah, that son should've been dead. AND Dakota Fanning WAS the most amazing thing in that movie that she's been in a long time.
*gasp* Cate Blanchett! Instant watch! Cate Blanchett is like... wow.
Hmm.. Sin City... yeah, Sin City was really laudable for its presentation, but the content there? Hmmm...nihilistic about its nihilism? Hmm....
Ah... M. Night Shyamalan... hehehe...what does Evan have to say? Hmm...haven't seen that many Hitchcock films really... I think I may see what you're saying in that Shyamalan takes formula and executes it, has decent twists, but hasn't shown anything really eternal...
Tim Burton.../cry He was so great... we need a new era of good Tim Burton.... And no Planet of the Apes! ARGH!
HUH? Explain to me how Match Point is a masterpiece??!?!?!
OOH! OOH! I have a request for the "Opinion on a Director!" TWO!
Strictly Ballroom's Baz Lurhmann... by the way you guys ROCK for playing the Credits theme "Bolero" from his Moulin Rouge. ROCK!
Aaaaaaand... Broadcast News' and As Good As It Gets' James L. Brooks?
Bah, I just want to suck your mind like the pustulent little blighter I am. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pryopizm on October 08, 2006, 09:01:04 PM
Post by: Pryopizm on October 08, 2006, 09:22:33 PM
Post by: TrueNerd on October 08, 2006, 11:11:18 PM
Bringing Out the Dead is okay. I haven't seen it in a while, but I remember the whole "Nicholas Cage leaving a wake of death behind him" point was made a few too many times. I did really love the scene in the ambulance with Janie Jones blaring though.
Fight Club is overrated. I don't think it's awful, but it's not nearly as good as everyone says. Seven is much better.
I've never seen a Roger Altman movie. I should probably get on that. Any reccommendations for a first one to watch, Evan?
American Dad = Teh Suck.
I... liked Batman Begins. It was mindlessly entertaining. I didn't like how the movie felt it needed to explain three whole times what would happen if the train reached city hall at the end or Katie Holmes, but for popcorn flicks, it did what it did well. I'm assuming you're referring to Memento as Nolan's one hit?
War of the Worlds was decent. I loved how the movie eschewed the usual trappings and conventions of crappy disaster flicks (see Day After Tomorrow). And yeah, it was surprisingly gory. Munich was the better Spielberg flick of 2005 though.
Sin City is absolutely beautiful. I love that style.
Yay! You like Kill Bill!
Hitchcock > Shyamalan. Accept no substitues.
Godfather? Apocalypse Now? C'mon Karl!
I've never seen the big deal with Burton.
Annie Hall, Manhattan, Sleeper FTW. And yeah Melinda and Melinda was alright, if only because it proved that Will Ferrel can do a great Woody Allen impersonation.
Everyone scores millions of bonus points for agreeing that they love Wes Anderson, which I believe is the only thing you agreed on? And Stan is right, City of God is PHENOMENAL.
Scrubs is funny, everything else he does sucks. Garden State was complete trash. I thought we were past the cliche of figuring your life out at the airport, but apparently not.
I really freaking liked that podcast. Evan, if you have some general movie suggestions I would love to hear them and learn your ways. Do you have a newsletter?
Post by: Kairon on October 09, 2006, 09:52:28 AM
And oh yes, City of God is sorta mind-blowing. The Director of that did an amazing job, absolutely amazing, which is why I HAD to watch "The Constant Gardener" when they chose him to direct that movie (also I'm a Ralph Fiennes fan..."Sonnenshine!").
Oh, and I own BOTH Moulin Rogue soundtracks Pryopizm! Hehehe... Romeo & Juliet is okay but... it IS more or less exact shakespeare language after all... Bahz Lurhmann just has tons of fun with the idea. Maybe too much fun, lol.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on October 09, 2006, 10:05:33 AM
Post by: Caliban on October 09, 2006, 11:36:25 AM
I didn't like Kill Bill that much, the first volume was ok, but the last movie was...I don't know how to explain it, it just didn't impress me.
There are alot of movies you guys/gals mention that I have no idea they exist, that's in part because I don't go to the movies these days.
I find it funny that alot of movies that I like are movies either from early 90's and older, just as an example I mention Arachnophobia to my younger working colleagues and they are like "Ara-kne-fobi-a? What is that?".
I love Star Trek, the movies aren't that great, specially the ones with the next generation crew, and even the ones with the old crew. People are better off just to watch the TV series.
Mad Max? Ronin? First Blood (Rambo)? Alien/Aliens? Anyway, I could keep on listing what I think are good movies, but are they really good movies? Does it really matter? I'm the one that is experiencing it, so why should I ever care what other people think of it.
There is no absolute truth.
Post by: mantidor on October 09, 2006, 11:41:49 AM
Post by: Deguello on October 09, 2006, 12:42:25 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 09, 2006, 01:18:37 PM
However, if you think all musicals are bad, please, please tell me you've watched Strictly Ballroom or Lars von trier's Dancer in the Dark before making that sweeping assessment. I hold neither Moulin Rouge, Chicago, nor other modern hollywood musicals in high esteem... but GOD.
Strictly Ballroom seems to me a good example of how to do a musical in a modern day setting (no one actually sings in it, incidentally, but there are wonderful sequences that use music almost as if it were a musical, beyond even the power a regular soundtrack possesses).
And OH MY GOD LARS VON TRIER BJORK AND DANCER IN THE DARK OH MY GOD THAT MOVIE WRENCHES AT THE HEART WATCH IT OH MY GOD. Also a musical, though the movie is so powerful that you're likely not to remember it as one.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 09, 2006, 01:55:39 PM
Um, these two are so different in their filming (Classical Cinema versus more Modernist approach) and their overall themes that they aren't comparable at all...
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 09, 2006, 02:08:06 PM
The writing and the direction were very good. But the action scenes were horrible, and felt confusing. Luckly it didn't rely on fighting to be good. Hopefully, the sequel will continue in the tradition of focusing on the story and characters...but also provide better directoring in the action sequences.
EDIT:
Fight Club is not overrated. And Seven is NOT better than Fight Club. Seven has an overly preachy message at the end. There is no debate of the meaning of the film...and it all leads to a moment that although incredibly powerful is completely predictable.
Fight Club on the other hand has many levels of discussion and debate. It does not leave you with just one meaning...but several topic points to discuss and ponder life. For instance, Fight Club can be a highly religious film for others. I look at Tyler Durden as a Christ Figure in the movie...but in an "anti-Christ" way. Meaning...that he brings salvation to all, and opposses living in the world like Christianity does. Except, he doesn't bring salvation through redemption, but through twisted understanding of damnation.
And a plus for Fight Club actually beign funny throughout the movie, and not just intense.
Post by: Deguello on October 09, 2006, 03:56:58 PM
Sucks. Sucks.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 09, 2006, 04:07:49 PM
Post by: wandering on October 09, 2006, 04:39:25 PM
...But then, I watched Batmen Begins on DVD, and I think it's become my favorite of the two. For one thing, the fight scenes don't make me sick on the small screen, and I can appreciate what he was trying to do with them now. But more importantly, Nolan's film excels where a Burton film never can: the characters. Everyone in the film feels like a real person. It's enough to make it hard to go back to Jack "I don't really understand this character so I'll just chew up the scenery and bask in the praise that'll be heaped upon me afterwards" Nicholson.
But anyway. Arguing over whether Batman or Batman Begins is better is pointless when they both pale in comparison to this.
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Hitchcock > Shyamalan. Accept no substitues.
Um, these two are so different in their filming (Classical Cinema versus more Modernist approach) and their overall themes that they aren't comparable at all...
Sure they are. One sucks and the other doesn't.
Post by: Pryopizm on October 09, 2006, 05:17:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Hitchcock > Shyamalan. Accept no substitues.
Um, these two are so different in their filming (Classical Cinema versus more Modernist approach) and their overall themes that they aren't comparable at all...
Part of understanding the conversation requires listening to the source. In the podcast, Evan mentions that Shamalamadingdong made the comparison himself. That he's essentially the new Hitchcock.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 09, 2006, 05:24:04 PM
"Sure they are. One sucks and the other doesn't."
More like YOU suck...Both rock!
Post by: Kairon on October 09, 2006, 07:42:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
"However, if you think all musicals are bad, please, please tell me you've watched Strictly Ballroom or Lars von trier's Dancer in the Dark before making that sweeping assessment."
Sucks. Sucks.
You...YOU... PHILISTINE WITH INTERNALLY CONSISTENT BELIEFS!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 09, 2006, 08:33:39 PM
I may comment on this later. Perhaps I should do my own movie podcast.
Post by: Kairon on October 09, 2006, 08:46:05 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Svevan on October 09, 2006, 09:46:07 PM
Please note! I have a lot of opinions. On the internet, as in real life, it is hard to be opinionated and not be a prick. I'm not excellent at being considerate, and I really really really am not so self-obsessed as to think my opinion is greater than anyone else's. Nonetheless, this post may look egotistical. Forgive that.
Kairon
>hmmm.... I saw Gosford Park but...what did I miss?
See it twice. I know that's pretentious, but in this film it's worth it. Also, seeing other Robert Altman movies is a good aid. Some facets of his style are large casts, overlapping dialogue, simple roving camera, and incisive yet fantasy-inspired subject material. Gosford Park's success is character - everyone is connected, has a motive, has a real history, and is developed fully. And there's over 20 major speaking roles!
>HUH? Explain to me how Match Point is a masterpiece??!?!?!
A good help is Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors. Summary of both films: Good and evil exist, but God does nothing to stop evil from triumphing over good. Match Point makes it almost possible to sympathize with its cruel villain, but in the end the film judges him and rejects him. The film says that if God will not punish evil, than man will punish himself.
>Opinions on: Baz Lurhmann, James L. Brooks
Lurhmann is excessive, and I guess that's a quality. Parts of Moulin Rouge are fantastic. Others are shoddy. I think if you can appreciate his excess, then do it - I was once a believer, but now I am on the fence.
Brooks' Spanglish is fantastic, with some serious flaws. I really loved the movie though, perhaps more than I should. As Good as it Gets has great performances but is middling as a film.
True Nerd
>I've never seen a Roger Altman movie. I should probably get on that. Any reccommendations for a first one to watch, Evan?
For early Altman, try McCabe and Mrs. Miller or Nashville. Later Altman, go for Gosford Park or The Player. (Actually, just start with The Player and move from there.)
>I'm assuming you're referring to Memento as Nolan's one hit?
Sure - but I prefer Following to that, and Insomnia is pretty good too.
>if you have some general movie suggestions I would love to hear them and learn your ways. Do you have a newsletter?
The nicest compliment I've gotten in weeks. You can read my opinions every two weeks or so at my MySpace blog (ugh, I know): http://www.myspace.com/svevan But I'm no expert. Just a fan, for now.
PartyBear
re: Batman Begins
>Liking a movie doesn't always have anything to do with whether or not it's good.
Agreed! I really like Total Recall and Clue, but both are probably not very good films. (Or maybe they are and I'm too blind to see my own pretense.)
Caliban
>but are they really good movies? Does it really matter? I'm the one that is experiencing it, so why should I ever care what other people think of it. There is no absolute truth.
If there is no absolute truth, then your statement is not true because it is an absolute. If we agree that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is not absolute, then there is the possibility that there IS absolute truth and your statement is proven false. Therefore no one can ever make the statement "there is no absolute truth" because it is a fallacy.
If you believe only your opinion of film or art or life matters, than you might as well live in a shell. I believe everyone's opinions deserve to be heard, but not all are equal - some people speak truth and others speak lies, some believe one thing while others believe the opposite. One person is right. We are not truly objective, nor are we perfect, but I believe it is possible through education and faith to achieve a stronger opinion, one that can be more fiercely defended and may eventually be rock-solid.
Deguello
>In fact any movie where the characters unplausibly burst out into a musical number sucks.
I disagree. No one here has yet referenced a truly good musical (though Dancer in the Dark comes close). I submit Singin' in the Rain, The Bandwagon, most Disney animated films (particularly Pinnochio), Fiddler on the Roof, The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T, The Wizard of Oz, Woody Allen's Everyone Says I Love You, and a very special film titled Lagaan. I highly recommend this last one. It is a very long film, nearly 4 hours. It is set in India and subtitled. It is a musical. But, lest you shrug it off, let me tell you that it is about Cricket. As in the British sport. And it is highly entertaining.
Wandering
re: Batman Begins
>For one thing, the fight scenes don't make me sick on the small screen
A serious problem with today's filmmakers: they edit their films on a small screen rather than a big one. See Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings for battles imperceptible in a theater, better at home. The Bourne Supremacy, though, is imperceptible in either place.
Let's just start a Funhouse movies podcast.
Post by: Deguello on October 09, 2006, 11:03:12 PM
Quote
I disagree. No one here has yet referenced a truly good musical (though Dancer in the Dark comes close). I submit Singin' in the Rain, The Bandwagon, most Disney animated films (particularly Pinnochio), Fiddler on the Roof, The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T, The Wizard of Oz, Woody Allen's Everyone Says I Love You, and a very special film titled Lagaan. I highly recommend this last one. It is a very long film, nearly 4 hours. It is set in India and subtitled. It is a musical. But, lest you shrug it off, let me tell you that it is about Cricket. As in the British sport. And it is highly entertaining.
Impossible. Musicals cannot be good movies. If you say that audiences are participatory in the movies they view, then I consider that a two-way street. They must participate in the plausible world that we live in. And nowhere in this world would anybody for any reason burst out into a song with pre-written lyrics specifically for that occasion that describes how they are feeling or what is happening. And furthermore, nobody would join them, but rather start dialing the white vans from the funny farm.
You may like some musicals, and that's fine. But obiovusly liking something doesn't make it good, and they all screw up a fundamental fact of the human condition that they try to evoke. Nobody sings. And especially not during important moments of their life, and they certainly do not have songs written out for events in their life that have yet to happen.
And seriously, Evan, musicals are the worst edited things ever. Plot BAMF Music BAMF Plot BAMF Music. It's irritating.
Post by: Caliban on October 10, 2006, 04:25:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Caliban
>but are they really good movies? Does it really matter? I'm the one that is experiencing it, so why should I ever care what other people think of it. There is no absolute truth.
If there is no absolute truth, then your statement is not true because it is an absolute. If we agree that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is not absolute, then there is the possibility that there IS absolute truth and your statement is proven false. Therefore no one can ever make the statement "there is no absolute truth" because it is a fallacy.
If you believe only your opinion of film or art or life matters, than you might as well live in a shell. I believe everyone's opinions deserve to be heard, but not all are equal - some people speak truth and others speak lies, some believe one thing while others believe the opposite. One person is right. We are not truly objective, nor are we perfect, but I believe it is possible through education and faith to achieve a stronger opinion, one that can be more fiercely defended and may eventually be rock-solid.
My statement is not an absolute, it is my statement, my view, it is from one and only one individual, so it is not absolute.
I too believe others opinions are important, but does it really matter, you are still going to watch it no matter what others say, and you will have your own opinion on it.
We are perfect, but how well can we master perfection is where we are at.
I liked your last "I believe it is possible through...", however even so sometimes that is not enough.
Post by: wandering on October 10, 2006, 06:44:42 AM
Quote
A serious problem with today's filmmakers: they edit their films on a small screen rather than a big one. See Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings for battles imperceptible in a theater, better at home. The Bourne Supremacy, though, is imperceptible in either place.
Hmm, interesting point. (But did filmmakers ever not edit on the small screen?)
Quote
You may like some musicals, and that's fine. But obiovusly liking something doesn't make it good, and they all screw up a fundamental fact of the human condition that they try to evoke. Nobody sings. And especially not during important moments of their life, and they certainly do not have songs written out for events in their life that have yet to happen.
Yeah, I am aware of your kind. I'm not sure whether or not I agree. I suppose this maybe is true in general, but with exceptions. One can make a serious case for musicals only working when they are comedic (see: Rocky Horror Picture Show, Little Shop of Horrors) or when the characters sing throughout the whole thing (see: Les Miserables, though that's a bit off topic, what with it never being made into a movie.) Though that definition excludes Cabaret and Chicago, so it fails. Maybe you could say musicals can also work if they feature characters whose lives revolve around the stage and singing.
Post by: Kairon on October 10, 2006, 07:31:07 AM
You don't notice it, but music infuses everything around you. Hmmm... but this is a funny observation coming from me, who didn't start actually collecting or really listening to music until 2002, who carries no MP3 player around with him, and when given the choice, would rather have silence than turn on his playlist.
Oh, and I can't believe I forgot Fiddler on the Roof Svevan. Hey guys, what about Jesus Christ, Superstar!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
P.S. It's neat how this thread was made to lambast Svevan but we're all treating him with reverence like he's PGC's own expert film critic!
Post by: IceCold on October 10, 2006, 08:55:39 AM
QuoteThis is something that I have always disagreed with you about. Let's take games, for instance.. You can judge games on technical aspects such as graphics (polygon count, effects etc), sound quality, production values and, to an extent, controls. However, people will always have different opinions about things like art style, music and, most importantly, whether it is fun or not. And I really don't think you can say that one person's opinion is correct, while another's is not. That last thread hit a dead end when you gave a detailed description of your definition of fun. I don't want to argue semantics, but I do believe that it's not so cut and dry. One person is not always right.
If there is no absolute truth, then your statement is not true because it is an absolute. If we agree that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is not absolute, then there is the possibility that there IS absolute truth and your statement is proven false. Therefore no one can ever make the statement "there is no absolute truth" because it is a fallacy.
If you believe only your opinion of film or art or life matters, than you might as well live in a shell. I believe everyone's opinions deserve to be heard, but not all are equal - some people speak truth and others speak lies, some believe one thing while others believe the opposite. One person is right. We are not truly objective, nor are we perfect, but I believe it is possible through education and faith to achieve a stronger opinion, one that can be more fiercely defended and may eventually be rock-solid.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on October 10, 2006, 10:16:24 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 10, 2006, 10:17:20 AM
That said, I'm still not crazy about the genre, I've just learned that it's okay for ridiculous things to happen...in the right context. "That guy is swinging from buildings, that NEVER happens in real life. Spider-Man is a terrible movie."
The other problem with musicals besides the fact that they break the suspension of disbelief is that you might just find the basic concept annoying. I also hated music videos that were all dancing back in the day, actually I'm still not too crazy about them, but the point is that I thought they were shallow and pointless. I learned that if I look at the performance rather than the "meaning" of song-and-dance numbers I get a lot more from them.
Edit: Insulting favourite movies, eh? I love Ghostbusters, The Big Lebowski and Snatch. Also pretty much any animated films, although this year the huge glut of computer animation is killing my interest.
Post by: Khushrenada on October 10, 2006, 10:47:49 AM
But I'm just focusing on one of the many disinteresting plots that animated films are using. I was watching Ebert and Roeper the other night (though it should really be called Roeper and a moron, since Ebert has been away and they've had mindless guest "critics") and Roeper made a comment during a review of Open Season about all the cartoon movies he's seen of animals and the wild. It's true. It seems to be such a huge theme.
Another part of the problem besides copycat story telling is simple storytelling. Finding Nemo and The Incredibles both had stories you could appreciate at any age and were deep enough for any age. They could also bring out emotion in me. I recently saw Open Season and you will get no emotion from that. Except starting to hate some of the characters. I don't know if anyone else has seen it but I think I'll post agin later in this thread tearing into this movie. But the story-telling is just predictable and uninspired.
I really can't remember all the animated movies that have come out this year. I think I've only seen two. But since I've mentioned Open Season, I'll get to the point of this thread. The best animated movie of the year and the one everyone should see is Over The Hedge. I'm not really a big fan of Dreamworks. I don't care for the Shrek movies. But when I first learned of this movie, I made a note of it. And when I saw the trailer for it, seeing it was a lock for me. To me, it was a Pixar film. That's the best praise I can give it. It can be enjoyed by everyone. It has a story everyone can appreciate. It may not have emotional depth like Pixar stories but the movie is more of a comedy unlike Pixar's films. It is a good comedy also. I can't believe this film didn't do better at the box office. So, if you are looking for a good animated film this year, Over The Hedge is the winner. And when you see a movie like Over The Hedge or Finding Nemo or The Incredibles, it's no wonder that one is disinterested in the other animated movies out there. You can always see what they're lacking.
Post by: Svevan on October 10, 2006, 09:35:50 PM
>Impossible. Musicals cannot be good movies. If you say that audiences are participatory in the movies they view, then I consider that a two-way street.
No, that is impossible. Performance is a two way street, film is one way.
>They must participate in the plausible world that we live in.
That is not the "other side" of the audience participation "street." Your analogy doesn't work.
>And nowhere in this world would anybody for any reason burst out into a song with pre-written lyrics specifically for that occasion that describes how they are feeling or what is happening. And furthermore, nobody would join them, but rather start dialing the white vans from the funny farm.
You are correct. James Bond would never succeed at any of his missions, nor live for thirty years and never age. Superman cannot actually fly. Fish don't talk. Yet we accept certain things on stage and in film that we don't in real life. Do you really think that if something doesn't happen in every day life that it cannot be put on film? Film shows us events ranging from mundane to fantastic - fantasy is usually a method to describe something true through visuals when another method would not suffice. Music sung in a film is meant to be an emotional outpouring, one that describes and enhances the TRUTH, not reality, of a given moment. Truth is the ultimate goal of all art, not realism.
>You may like some musicals, and that's fine. But obiovusly liking something doesn't make it good, and they all screw up a fundamental fact of the human condition that they try to evoke.
Disliking something doesn't make it bad either, yet you end with your personal dislike of the musical style:
>And seriously, Evan, musicals are the worst edited things ever. Plot BAMF Music BAMF Plot BAMF Music. It's irritating.
An excellent opinion: some musicals are edited poorly. But the diversity within the genre belies your generalization. Dancer in the Dark is the opposite of Singin' in the Rain in editing, but both are musicals.
Jeff, I think you need to see a really human musical as opposed to the flashy modern ones. Chicago, for instance, is edited poorly and I dislike it a lot. Moulin Rouge is for certain tastes only. Try out something like Lagaan, Fiddler on the Roof, or Kenneth Branagh's Love's Labour's Lost. South Park was a musical, and I don't think you could complain about its editing or humanity. Robert Altman's Popeye is pretty deft at weaving its music into the film without it seeming out of place.
Wandering
>But did filmmakers ever not edit on the small screen?
Some used to edit on small machines that you would peer into to emulate a larger screen, but Sidney Lumet says that he always edits on a small screen like most, but then plays it on a big screen to make sure it works. When you see Howard Hughes in The Aviator watching his film in a very small theater, or Jack Black in King Kong, that's the place where they would play the newly edited stuff and see if it "works." I'm not sure Jackson ever took that step, and if he did he liked how incomprehensible it was.
Caliban
>My statement is not an absolute, it is my statement, my view, it is from one and only one individual, so it is not absolute.
But you hold your statement to be true; is it true for you only? If so, does that mean absolute truth exists except where it affects you? Which means that when I believe in absolute truth for everyone, including you, I'm correct even though that contradicts your belief that there isn't any such thing?
>I too believe others opinions are important, but does it really matter, you are still going to watch it no matter what others say, and you will have your own opinion on it.
My opinions are the product of many other's opinions. Instead of dismissing them as "someone else's" I reason them through, consider them, and decide if they match up with the observable world. I am not so vain as to think I can get through the world on my own. Many people have brought me to the place I am at - that is why we read, listen, and converse.
>We are perfect, but how well can we master perfection is where we are at.
This is a major philosophical disagreement. I believe humans are fallible and depraved to the point of corruption. You speak of "mastering" our perfection, but that shows that we haven't actually attained the perfection you claim. How can you master something as absolute as perfection?
IceCold
>This is something that I have always disagreed with you about. Let's take games, for instance.. You can judge games on technical aspects such as graphics (polygon count, effects etc), sound quality, production values and, to an extent, controls. However, people will always have different opinions about things like art style, music and, most importantly, whether it is fun or not. And I really don't think you can say that one person's opinion is correct, while another's is not. That last thread hit a dead end when you gave a detailed description of your definition of fun. I don't want to argue semantics, but I do believe that it's not so cut and dry. One person is not always right.
I bolded that sentence because I agree that you and I cannot say that. No one can determine 100% that someone is correct, but we can come to strong conclusions. People will always disagree, but why are they disagreeing? Does one man merely say "I thought this movie was good," the other says "I thought it was bad," and they both rest knowing that both of these statements can be true? The world today doesn't believe in antithesis - that is, that two contradicting statements cannot be equally true. Otherwise every sentence we say, including everything said above by the relativists among us, cannot be proven or disproven. It merely exists as a vapor that floats through the universe and affects no one. I heartily disagree. Why do you think I keep saying I disagree with you? Because what you said just now is your opinion, and I do not believe that the natural world supports it. This is of course based on my incomplete observations of the world, something I desire to improve constantly.
Post by: wandering on October 10, 2006, 09:49:26 PM
Quote
More like YOU suck...Both rock!
I actually really like Shyamalan. I hope someday he manages to make a third good film (with his first two good films being the Sixth Sense, 3/4 of Signs, and 1/4 of the Village.)
Quote
Some used to edit on small machines that you would peer into to emulate a larger screen
Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. Hmm.
Quote
When you see Howard Hughes in The Aviator watching his film in a very small theater, or Jack Black in King Kong, that's the place where they would play the newly edited stuff and see if it "works." I'm not sure Jackson ever took that step, and if he did he liked how incomprehensible it was.
I didn't find the Lord of the Rings' battles incomprehensible on the large screen. But whatever.
Quote
Why do you think I keep saying I disagree with you? Because what you said just now is your opinion, and I do not believe that the natural world supports it.
Interesting. When I say I disagree, on matters such as film, I think I do so to point out my own priorities. You might say you love Olivier's Henry V because of it's breathtaking visuals, I might say I didn't really like it because Olivier butchered a good story for the purpose of propaganda. I don't see how either stance isn't supported by the natural world.
Post by: the REAL wandering on October 10, 2006, 10:23:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SUPER's dupe accountQuote
Why do you think I keep saying I disagree with you? Because what you said just now is your opinion, and I do not believe that the natural world supports it.
Interesting. When I say I disagree, on matters such as film, I think I do so to point out my own priorities. You might say you love Olivier's Henry V because of it's breathtaking visuals, I might say I didn't really like it because Olivier butchered a good story for the purpose of propaganda. I don't see how either stance isn't supported by the natural world.
Ah, you talk about 'matters such as film' as if you treat other matters differently. Where do you think the priorities you speak of, the ones that determine what you find important in film, come from? Doesn't it tie back in to your sense of right and wrong? Your belief in God? You cannot say your opinion on film is unrelated to the ultimate truth of the one true God, the prophets who relay his message, and his only son.
Post by: wandering on October 10, 2006, 10:25:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: the FAKE wandering
You cannot say or opinion on film is unrelated to the ultimate truth of the one true God, the prophets who relay his message, and his only son.
A person's religious beliefs cannont be considered objectively true.
Post by: the REAL wandering on October 10, 2006, 10:27:30 PM
Post by: wandering on October 10, 2006, 10:35:37 PM
Post by: the REAL wandering on October 10, 2006, 10:42:06 PM
Actually, you've just rendered any further debate pointless:
Quote
what is ultimately true
Bzzt, sorry, that's the correct answer. You lose. Please come back and play again.
Post by: IceCold on October 10, 2006, 10:47:12 PM
Post by: the REAL wandering on October 10, 2006, 10:53:11 PM
Post by: wandering on October 10, 2006, 10:54:33 PM
Post by: IceCold on October 10, 2006, 11:00:37 PM
Post by: wandering on October 10, 2006, 11:03:44 PM
Post by: the REAL wandering on October 10, 2006, 11:34:27 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 11, 2006, 05:40:18 AM
But even the ones that aren't animal themed seem like boring "me toos" and I think the sheer number has something to do with that. A lack of quality does too, which I guess might be what you were getting at more than copycat-ism.
Ironically, after Disney ditched its traditional animation units, those ex-employees went on to create Curious George which is not an all-time great movie, but it succeeds at standing out from all the "me too" computer animated flicks just because it's not one of them. I saw it and although it's geared towards kids, it's charming in a way that a lot of these other movies don't seem to be. They're too busy trying to be cool.
Post by: Caliban on October 11, 2006, 07:31:42 AM
Yes.
If it exists for others, then so be it.
You are correct accordingly to your own observable world.
Svevan > My opinions are the product of many other's opinions. Instead of dismissing them as "someone else's" I reason them through, consider them, and decide if they match up with the observable world. I am not so vain as to think I can get through the world on my own. Many people have brought me to the place I am at - that is why we read, listen, and converse.
Indeed, however that does not mean that you won't form your own observable world taken from those same opinions and matchups.
Svevan > This is a major philosophical disagreement. I believe humans are fallible and depraved to the point of corruption. You speak of "mastering" our perfection, but that shows that we haven't actually attained the perfection you claim. How can you master something as absolute as perfection?
Then how would you see a human as perfect?
Svevan > Does one man merely say "I thought this movie was good," the other says "I thought it was bad," and they both rest knowing that both of these statements can be true?
Yes.
Post by: Deguello on October 11, 2006, 01:58:45 PM
Quote
No, that is impossible. Performance is a two way street, film is one way.
I fail to see the distinction. I mean, what if I were to film a Live performance in a theatre with a camcorder? Would my left eyeball be on a two-way street and my right eyeball be on a one-way street? No way. All films are Live performances. Just taped and with many takes to get it "just right," but that take is just as live as the take they threw away.
Quote
That is not the "other side" of the audience participation "street." Your analogy doesn't work.
My analogy works to me. I go into a movie accepting certain highly improbable things made plausible by a good film crew (Please notice the distinction between "possible" and "plausible") and enter "their world," and in return I expect them to at least be plausible to members of the real world.
Quote
You are correct. James Bond would never succeed at any of his missions, nor live for thirty years and never age. Superman cannot actually fly. Fish don't talk. Yet we accept certain things on stage and in film that we don't in real life. Do you really think that if something doesn't happen in every day life that it cannot be put on film? Film shows us events ranging from mundane to fantastic - fantasy is usually a method to describe something true through visuals when another method would not suffice. Music sung in a film is meant to be an emotional outpouring, one that describes and enhances the TRUTH, not reality, of a given moment. Truth is the ultimate goal of all art, not realism.
Again please note the difference between "plausbile" and "possible." It is greatly possible and plausible for James Bond to succeed. It requires the belief of many improbable things, but it is certainly plausible for a super-spy of his calibur. Superman can fly. Any man can fly. We've been flying for over a century. Now the idea of a man simply going "up up and away" and zooming out may be improbable to the point of impossibility, but the act of flying is very common, from airliners to hang gliders to those weird suits that also glide a man through the air to parachuting. It may not be possible to do it, but it is certainly plausible to just fly like that. And Fish do talk. Cats, Dogs, Horses, even single-celled organisms talk. They may not speak English, but they talk. However, a big musical number during an important part of life is possible, but certainly not plausible. (hypothetically) No gangster ever sang "Mob Man #1" in a witness box, a song he had written and rehearsed just incase he was ever arrested and put on trial. And just what the hell is West Side Story? I mean seriously. Any message or truth one is trying to convey is pissed away the very second one strikes up the band and dances about. It is ultimately jarring, even if the transitions are as smooth as possible. The viewer has to switch off "plot" and switch on "song," which is why musicals are decidedly unpopular, and rightly so because of their inherent implausibility.
And you know what really chaps my ass about musicals? Why do they corrupt everything they touch? I have been in a fair share of musicals myself (high school), and it always stings when I found out there is a straight version of the play that existed before, and that it was ADAPTED into a musical. I was in My Fair Lady in High school and when I found out it used to be a play called Pygmalion until somebody put lyrics in it for some reason. Musicals just cheapen everything they touch. You say not to look at the modern "flashy" musicals and check out older ones. But even then the older ones are most of the time versions of something else, which would make them the "flashy" versions of those movies/plays/books. I seriously hate that. Make an original musical please, and stop infecting everything else. I mean seriously, Les Miserables? A Musical? Victor Hugo is spinning in his grave. Did they think it wasn't good enough or something?
I think that last part of my post was supposed to be a joke, Evan. It was about your assertation that Batman Begins is poorly edited, and immediately I got the image of somebody jumping up in a theater going "WOOO! The film has AWESOME editing man!"
Post by: Kairon on October 11, 2006, 02:53:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
And you know what really chaps my ass about musicals? Why do they corrupt everything they touch? I have been in a fair share of musicals myself (high school), and it always stings when I found out there is a straight version of the play that existed before, and that it was ADAPTED into a musical. I was in My Fair Lady in High school and when I found out it used to be a play called Pygmalion until somebody put lyrics in it for some reason. Musicals just cheapen everything they touch. You say not to look at the modern "flashy" musicals and check out older ones. But even then the older ones are most of the time versions of something else, which would make them the "flashy" versions of those movies/plays/books. I seriously hate that. Make an original musical please, and stop infecting everything else. I mean seriously, Les Miserables? A Musical? Victor Hugo is spinning in his grave. Did they think it wasn't good enough or something?
Just wait until you find out how that Pymalion play you rever so much was really a COMPLETE retooling and not-at-all-faithful retelling of an ancient greek tragedy of the same name! OH NOES! IS NOTHING SACRED? DEATH TO THE HACK GEORGE BERNARD SHAW!
Watch Jesus Christ Superstar, a "rock-opera" that was intended for the visual medium even though it was actually released as a record before it was adapted as a play and then a movie.
Or watch De-Lovely starring Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd, a film about the professional life of Cole Porter, whose music for both stage and screen is used to tell his story, and features musical performanes by Elvis Costello, Alanis Morisette, Natalie Cole, Sheryl Crow, Diana Krall, Robbie Williams, and more!
The thing about musicals is that we don't have to believe that people actually break out singing, song is just an abstraction of the things people say, feel, and do. Musical numbers just take all that human experience, and condense it into an emotive mix of lyrics, music, dance, and visuals.
Heck Dequello, nobody in real life talks the way people do in sappy love songs. Nobody ever knows the right on-liner to use like in those witty movies. No one is ever swept off their feet like in one of those harlequin romance novels. NOBODY looks like Tom Cruise... except, well, Tom Cruise.
I guess those are also unrealistic, ridiculous and implausible forms of entertainment!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Deguello on October 11, 2006, 07:44:27 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 11, 2006, 07:46:23 PM
Post by: Pryopizm on October 11, 2006, 08:18:20 PM
Post by: Deguello on October 11, 2006, 11:42:41 PM
Quote
It seems that the problem does not lie with the musical, but rather with Deg.
I have an alternate theory. Musicals suck, and the hordes of people who support them have no taste, but that's how this whole topic started then, now isn't it?
Post by: wandering on October 12, 2006, 06:10:16 AM
Okay, I've got it. The Meaning of Life. Not even you could cringe during "Every Sperm is Sacred." ...well, I mean. I guess maybe you're supposed to cringe. You know what I mean.
Post by: wandering on October 12, 2006, 02:59:14 PM
Post by: the REAL wandering on October 12, 2006, 04:19:06 PM
Post by: Svevan on October 12, 2006, 04:55:54 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 12, 2006, 07:47:08 PM
Ebert & Svevan? When will it come truuuuu?!?!
BELIEVE!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Svevan on October 14, 2006, 11:39:16 PM
Oh, never replied to Deg or Caliban: DISAGREE. Sorry. Nothing intelligent to say at this time.
Post by: Caliban on October 15, 2006, 01:16:39 PM
