 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 20, 2013 - 2:04 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Since  Omnipotent-San has spoken with such absolute Absolutism, the non-kosmic kuestion remains:
As EVERYTHING apparently 'belongs' somewhere else - 50s, 60s, 90s with the 70s and 80s inexplicably missing from such Himalayan omniscient sight -
does anything belong in the Here and Now? 
Don't get overly dizzy levitating above the water and over the air ... 
Am I supposed to be "Omnipotent-San"? Anyway, as I'm sure you well know, there is very little new under the sun, and true originality is a rarity. But if anything original pops up, let me know, and I'll be the first to say, "Now that's here and now!" And I'll add, "And that's something new that's really interesting."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 21, 2013 - 11:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
You know that Tarantino has wanted to make a James Bond movie for years, but the Bond producers have said, "Thanks, but 'No Thanks!'." They don't trust what he would do with the franchise. As much as I find Tarantino shallow and stupid (and most of his movies too), I do think he'd bring at least an energy to the Bond films that it's lacked for decades now. I think the Bond movies have pretty much calcified into "movies for old farts," or, as you say, "geezers." What was the last Bond film, SKYFALL, but an elaborate send off for Judi Dench (age 79), with a damn near walking dead Albert Finney (age 77) thrown in for good measure. Now, I'm not knocking old people (I'm in my mid-fifties.), but when I look at my favorite Bond movies -- the ones from the '60s -- I don't see them as entertainment for the older crowd. They were the height of pop culture then, now they're not much more than nostalgia. You say they're still "going strong." I have to disagree. I think they're just "going along."
I also wish people would stop confusing popularity with quality. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's therefore good. Cigarette smoking has been, and still is, popular, but it ain't good. Eating a lot of foods full of sugar and salt is popular, but again, not good. And I would argue -- as I'm doing -- that just as junk food isn't good for you, neither is junk movies. And it's not just bad for you, it's bad for the culture. We (the geezers) really shouldn't celebrate it. We should be dissatisfied with it. Is this how you want to spend the last years of your life, being served entertainment that's just a regurgitation of what's been popular for decades, but that really offers little in substance?
And, by the way, just because Dr. Zaius is my avatar, and the original APES film my favorite movie since childhood, doesn't mean that I celebrate the milking of the concept that Fox has done (they ran it into the ground in the '70s), or that I'm all that enthusiastic about the "yet-another-sequel" coming out next year. If it's a good movie with some brains to it, then lucky movie and lucky everyone who sees it, but if not, then it's just another piece of movie junk food -- a bad thing.
Rory, you make some good points there and I don't entirely disagree with you (though I do continue to harbor the suspicion that you are in fact The Joker). I just want to ask you one question: Do you remember "entertainment"? It's a concept that embraces fantasy, humor, action, adventure and excitement, and does not include any definite requirement for "quality." A fairly substantial portion of the things that have entertained me over the years probably would be considered "poor quality" using the measuring stick of some humorless critic, searching for Shakespeare-worthy fare in the popular culture. I don't really care what that guy thinks, or worry about his disapproval when I'm watching something up there on the big screen. Since "movie junk food" doesn't contain calories or promote lung cancer, it is not "a bad thing." People have to deal with the real world all day long at work -- who needs some asshole Hollywood director (or anyone else) telling them what they should be entertained by on their own time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 21, 2013 - 8:03 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Rory, you make some good points there and I don't entirely disagree with you (though I do continue to harbor the suspicion that you are in fact The Joker). I just want to ask you one question: Do you remember "entertainment"? It's a concept that embraces fantasy, humor, action, adventure and excitement, and does not include any definite requirement for "quality." A fairly substantial portion of the things that have entertained me over the years probably would be considered "poor quality" using the measuring stick of some humorless critic, searching for Shakespeare-worthy fare in the popular culture. I don't really care what that guy thinks, or worry about his disapproval when I'm watching something up there on the big screen. Since "movie junk food" doesn't contain calories or promote lung cancer, it is not "a bad thing." People have to deal with the real world all day long at work -- who needs some asshole Hollywood director (or anyone else) telling them what they should be entertained by on their own time?
Well, just when I think, "I'm done with this thread," I get pulled back in, but... whatever.
Believe it or not, there are so-called, generally agreed upon "bad movies" that I not only like, but are also some of my personal favorites. My favorite example of this is ONE MILLION YEARS B.C. There is no way that I, as a serious film buff -- and I am serious! -- would argue that ONE MILLION YEARS B.C. is a good movie. It's weaknesses are obvious, I would imagine, to nearly everyone. Still, there's good stuff in it -- and I like it [i}in general.
Another example is THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS. I love this movie. I think it's brilliant, and so do many others, including Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, but it seems most of the opinions I've read since going on IMDb.com way back last century, are that this movie stinks. So, is the movie brilliant, or does it stink? Of course, it ultimately comes down to just a matter of subjective opinion with no one either right or wrong. It all depends on -- as someone mentioned before -- your sensibilities, but here's where I think you're misunderstanding me...
You seem to be coming from the direction of movies as entertainment for the most part. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in movies as art. Even the most commercial and exploitive films have some element of art in them. In the art world there are standards as to what is good and what is not. These standards are set by a general agreement between critics and the public as to what constitutes "the best" and then everything else is judged against these examples of high quality. Now, I'm someone who respects critics. That doesn't seem to be the fashion today. Everyone now seems to want to be their own critic in a world where all opinions are equal and all judgements are made simply on the basis of what the individual likes or doesn't like, and if you like something that makes it good. I think that's bullshit and leaves us with no standards of quality whatsoever. A critical reality like that is a place for Philistines, and if you think that's an elitist opinion, then so be it.
We also seem to be going through an era of lists. Everybody seems to like making up lists of their favorite things and movies are certainly at the top of such lists. I'm sure you've all seen lists of the Top 100 movies ever made. They're usually complied by polling the opinions of professional critics, and you can usually judge the quality of these lists by who they're asking. Personally, I hate lists, and I don't have a list of my top 100 movies of all time because... "Who cares?"... but I still have a certain level of knowledge as to what's generally considered the best, and I respect it. Also, I don't believe in art that there's an example of THE best. I prefer to go only as high as "one of the best." CITIZEN KANE is one of the best movies ever made, but because of many factors, and despite my own love of the movie, I would never argue that it's THE best. The original PLANET OF THE APES has been my favorite movie since the age of eight. I think it's one of the best science fiction films ever made, but I would never argue that it's THE best. Every movie has its flaws.
Now I feel like I'm rambling so I'm just going to stop, but as far as movies as just entertainment.... I think that really shortchanges the art form. Look, I was entertained by DJANGO UNCHAINED, but I didn't leave the theatre thinking that it was a very good movie. I still have my standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 21, 2013 - 10:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
We also seem to be going through an era of lists. Everybody seems to like making up lists of their favorite things and movies are certainly at the top of such lists. I'm sure you've all seen lists of the Top 100 movies ever made. They're usually complied by polling the opinions of professional critics, and you can usually judge the quality of these lists by who they're asking. Personally, I hate lists, and I don't have a list of my top 100 movies of all time because... "Who cares?"... but I still have a certain level of knowledge as to what's generally considered the best, and I respect it. Also, I don't believe in art that there's an example of THE best. I prefer to go only as high as "one of the best." CITIZEN KANE is one of the best movies ever made, but because of many factors, and despite my own love of the movie, I would never argue that it's THE best. The original PLANET OF THE APES has been my favorite movie since the age of eight. I think it's one of the best science fiction films ever made, but I would never argue that it's THE best. Every movie has its flaws.
Now I feel like I'm rambling so I'm just going to stop, but as far as movies as just entertainment.... I think that really shortchanges the art form. Look, I was entertained by DJANGO UNCHAINED, but I didn't leave the theatre thinking that it was a very good movie. I still have my standards.
I strongly suspect that if we got down to cases we might discover we are not so far apart on these things. I do appreciate fine craft (great cinematography, or a clever screenplay for example) when I come across it, but I reserve the right to enjoy a dumb science fiction or horror film all the same, without a second thought about whether Quentin Tarantino or anyone else considers it "good" or "interesting." (DJANGO UNCHAINED was, for me, a complete piece of crap, big time un-entertaining, and if I am never again subjected to the sight of Jamie Foxx's upside down purple balls, it will be way too soon for me.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we're all overlooking the obvious fact that Batman does not think Tarantino is very interesting.
Bill Carson didn't overlook it. Check his Oct 11, 2013 - 6:07 PM post.
Not to put words in his mouth, but Batman would probably find that QT has a lot in common with the Joker, and would think it mildly interesting that he arrives at it naturally, and never needed to fall into a vat of toxic goo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
