View Single Post
Old May 28 2013, 02:48 PM   #135
Vice Admiral
thestrangequark's Avatar
Location: Brooklyn
Re: Have cultural standards gotten lower?

^But fun problems!
ichab wrote: View Post
thestrangequark wrote: View Post

"I don't like hiphop!" Is not objective evidence.
First off, my remarks were to the OP, not you.
And second, I was answering HIS question which was asking for an opinion on popular culture. I answered it. Sorry that I missed your "demands" for evidence backing up our opinions to the OP.
I think you've made the mistake of believing my post was directed solely at you, it wasn't, so no need to get huffy. Wasn't it fairly obvious that those comments were addressed to everyone in this thread who has tried to argue that culture is deteriorating? I did explicitly address everyone, and specifically named only one other person (who wasn't you), and asked these questions before you even joined the topic. So chill, it's not all about you.

Again, if you have failed to recognize that hip-hop and rap are huge genres with a huge amount of artists of varying styles, content, and quality, then that speaks volumes about you, not about the music.
It speaks a lot about me. I don't like hip hop. There are many who don't like today's country music or today's version of Rock. Everyone has their own opinion on what is good. Just because you disagree with that opinion doesn't make theirs any less. There is no way that someone can "prove" that they don't like hip hop. It's an opinion. Not fact.
Um, yeah, that's the point I was making...

I wasn't around in the sixties but I know that music which wasn't done by the artists themselves was considered inferior in that time. It's why The Monkees were so hated by the music critics.
And? Relevance?

And the above argument about Hollywood shows only that you guys are completely clueless about the history of film. There have always been dozens of crap films for every good one, and Hollywood thrived on remakes from the start! Hell, The Wizard of Oz was a remake -- and I am talking about the 1939 version. It had been made something like 10 times before the famous 39 turn at the story. The Maltese Falcon, 1940-ish? Remake. Scarface? Remake.
If you knew as much about film as you claim then you would know that movies were not released anywhere near the rate they are today.
When did I claim to be an expert on films? You really need to reread my post, maybe sans knee-jerk defensiveness.
There were no multiplexes playing 10-20 movies a day.Most of the movies were adapted from famous novels or popular stage plays.Of course you had the occasional remake, but nowhere near the rate of remakes that you have today. With some eg: Spiderman,The Ring, they're doing them within ten years of the original. That's ridiculous.

Also, the Wizard of Oz in 1939 was the first version that was not a silent picture and was in full color. The earlier adaptions were done during the era of advancement in film technology.Every "Oz" movie since 1939 have been attempted sequals or prequals, not remakes.
So? And computer animation and 3D film have made huge advances since the 2001 Spider-Man movie. If someone thinks they can do a different or better job of telling a story, what's wrong with that? I'm not an expert in literature and storytelling either, but I know enough to know that people have been telling and retelling the same stories in different ways for millennia. Retelling is nothing new. Your argument that remakes in the movie industry are evidence of the devolution of culture fails: it has been shown that within the film industry remakes have been the status quo from the get-go, and the same goes for the broader context of story-telling in human history (religion possibly being one of the greatest examples).

The Enterprise is my TARDIS.
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote