A
Amaris
Guest
I'm not asking whether you can, I'm asking why it matters to you whether other people like certain movies.
J.
The sheer emotion of that trailer
- Thread starter BorgPhil
- Start date
I'm not asking whether you can, I'm asking why it matters to you whether other people like certain movies.
J.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
You've all heard it, people.
Stop watching the movies you like! Now! Because, you know, some experts have decided they are crap.
You're intentionally being silly, right? They have studied cinema, and understand it enough to make a more educated appraisal.
It's still only their subjective opinion.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
I take it you've never seen "Dead Poets' Society"...
The inestimable Mr. Pritchard is the textbook author Robin William's character has his students literally tear the forward out of their texts because he parrots the same sort of "We 'experts' will tell you what is good art and what is bad art" felgercarb that the quickening and his so-called "educated appraisers" is spouting.
The crit is entirely of the position and it's defense.
You've all heard it, people.
Stop watching the movies you like! Now! Because, you know, some experts have decided they are crap.
You're intentionally being silly, right? They have studied cinema, and understand it enough to make a more educated appraisal.
It's still only their subjective opinion.
Yes, but an opinion based on a learned, expert position (and that tips the scale for me), and coupled with my opinion, I feel comfortable to say that today's cinema is wanting. It's an opinion I agree with. Thanks.
I don't get what you are asking.
Yes I too had chills and a feeling of sheer awe while seeing the trailer in the theater during Watchmen. As I stated in the trailer thread my friend next to me yelped and jumped out of his seat he could barely contain his excitement which caused me to laugh when I wanted to cry my guts out! The music and the visuals...this trailer sold me on the concept of this film more than the teaser and trailer 1! I'm ready for this...and can hardly wait. The scene where Kirk sits in the center seat with the crew looking at him almost in shock and awe is awesome!
You've all heard it, people.
Stop watching the movies you like! Now! Because, you know, some experts have decided they are crap.
You're intentionally being silly, right? They have studied cinema, and understand it enough to make a more educated appraisal.
and some of these film historians /critics believe the trek films were junk food cinema.
And they are right... if you are using a higher measuring stick.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
So, anyone who doesn't agree with that subjective opinion 'based on a learned, expert position' is... what? Stupid? Ignorant?
And what is it that today's cinema is wanting?
Good point, and I do understand. I don't believe in an absolute in this area, but a standard does exist. I'm glad it does. I like Shakespeare. I like comic books. Both have there place. But, are they on the same level? It's an interesting conundrum.
I won't get into the whole "quality of art" debate, but I will throw out what I believe is a reasonably factual statement:
The more that time passes, the more time history has to filter what is really good from what sucks.
There are thousands of films from past decades that we don't see because they have been forgotten. And while there are plenty of gems in the group, there's also plenty of crap (from ALL eras).
On the other hand, it's not too difficult to take an overview of just about all of the major films being released in our present day. Seriously, how many people in 40 years are going to know anything about the crappiest of the films being released now?
I do think this can tend to lend to the idea that the works of the past are better. Perhaps so - but perhaps, also, it's just that what we see from the past - because it has survived - is, on average, better than what we see today, because the present lacks the filter of time.
I've been running a lot of Best Picture polls; I can tell you that American Beauty (which won) or Milk (which was nominated) are, for example, far better than "You Can't Take It With You" or any other number of Best Picture winners. Admittedly this is a limited example, but it does go toward my point.
Oh, and by the way, ID4 was great.
The more that time passes, the more time history has to filter what is really good from what sucks.
There are thousands of films from past decades that we don't see because they have been forgotten. And while there are plenty of gems in the group, there's also plenty of crap (from ALL eras).
On the other hand, it's not too difficult to take an overview of just about all of the major films being released in our present day. Seriously, how many people in 40 years are going to know anything about the crappiest of the films being released now?
I do think this can tend to lend to the idea that the works of the past are better. Perhaps so - but perhaps, also, it's just that what we see from the past - because it has survived - is, on average, better than what we see today, because the present lacks the filter of time.
I've been running a lot of Best Picture polls; I can tell you that American Beauty (which won) or Milk (which was nominated) are, for example, far better than "You Can't Take It With You" or any other number of Best Picture winners. Admittedly this is a limited example, but it does go toward my point.
Oh, and by the way, ID4 was great.
Thanks for being the first with the obvious response I was expecting. God forbid I should enjoy a popcorn flick designed to entertain and not just glacial Ingmar Bergman flicks (which I love too, by the way).
Dumb and Dumber is a friggin' classic.
chacun a son gout, y'all... 
I saw it when it first came out, but not recently -- liked it a lot, in fact -- but forgive me if I've forgotten some of the details.
Okay, I understand the reference now (even if it should really have been to "Mr. J. Evans Pritchard" rather than "Evard") but it's a somewhat obscure reference, and one a lot of people here might not get. I still think that the way you offered it here in conjunction with the "rectal thermometer" remark came off as mildly insulting, whether or not it was your intent to do so. Worded differently or more carefully might have been better, in this case. Or you could simply have let it go without any response; I find that approach more and more useful these days.
I never even bothered to watch Dumb and Dumber -- it just didn't look interesting to me at all -- but I don't get the criticism ID4 tends to get around here; I thought it delivered exactly what it promised, and think that nitpicking its scientific inaccuracies and such is kind of missing the point. But that's just me.
Whatever the case, I'm not really expecting Star Trek to resemble either of them too closely.
Someone here, I won't say who, comes across as one who would only watch critically-acclaimed movies so that he could tell his friends that's what he's watching. "Why I would NEVER be caught dead in a multiplex when there are so many art houses around! You can't possibly drink a Chardonnay while watching a Michael Bay movie. Those poor filmgoers probably eat at Burger King afterward."
You can certainly enjoy popcorn flicks. But do you want Trek XI to be one?
A
Amaris
Guest
I am asking you why it is so important to you that other people enjoy movies and have different tastes from your own.
That, somehow, your standards of artistic merit are more authoritative than those of another.
J.
Similar threads
