Some very good and very interesting points being made here.
The conversation seems to be going in several directions at once...but I think that's a good thing.


First off, John:

"I feel that the comment 'Art without craft is random and meaningless.' is not exactly right"

I may have gone too far in those words to prove a point.
I can see now that the word 'meaningless' was the wrong choice.
Perhaps 'unfocused' or 'ineffective' would be a better word.
(obviously i don't have a good understanding of the craft of writing)
:)

My point was that 'art' with NO craft whatsoever would be too random and unfocused for an artist to truly commmunicate with his audience. Your example was:

"I used to paint oils long before I took actual lessons and I swear I put as much heart into I could; there was definate passion in my attempts to create art. Was my lack of 'technical skill' any less meaningful?

You put a lot of passion into your painting, and (I assume) you attempted to learn, if even on your own, how to make your work better. You may not have had lessons from a teacher, but I would hazzard to guess that you were trying to get a handle on the craft. I would not say that your art was 'less meaningful' because of that, but I would probably guess that it was less focused, and more random.

That brings us to what I think is the biggest challenge for any artist, balancing the craft and the passion. That's the trick.
As you said, you did eventually take lessons...and once you begin to learn the craft, you begin to learn the tricks. It's easy to become lazy, and it's easy to lose the passion you originally had.
That's the challenge of the artist, I think, to learn their craft without losing their passion.

Laurence said it well in his post:
"But THE GREAT DIRECTORS are the ones that keep reaching inside theirselves to find "The beginner's mind". They keep themslves hungry"

I think that is exactly right.

Art, to me, is about communication. Artists create work, most of the time, to communicate something to their audience. Whether that is an idea, an emotion, a statement of some kind...they are trying to communicate. The passion is what drives them to communicate, the craft is what allows them to do it in a focused way. Balancing those two is the key.

I read another quote from Cassavetes yesterday when I was reading over that stuff on Carney's site. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "You make films because you have to, not because you want to. You make a film to put something INTO it, not to get something out of it."

I thought there was a lot of truth to that statement.
And the passion, as pointed out here, does not necessarily come from the act of filmmaking itself. It comes from the message, the idea, the emotion, or whatever it is that you are trying to communicate to your audience.

Richard said it well in his post:
"You do it (produce art) because you are passionate about _______ (fill in the blank). In other words, its not about your passion for art, but your passion for justice, love, etc. You do it because you feel something deeply about the world or the human condition, and you want other people to feel, see, hear, or think the same thing – have the same experience"


Sorry to quote so much from everyone's posts...but I feel everyone here has made some very valid and good points.

In the end, I still believe that a great artist needs a balance of passion and craft. The key is balance and moderation.

You need to learn enough to understand your medium.
But you have to be passionate enough to know to forget it when it counts.

Not sure if that really means anything, but sounded good, right?
:)

-Luis


PS.
For the record Laurence, I looked up Ray Carney on Imdb.com and he's not credited with anything. I'm pretty sure he's just a scholar, not a filmmaker.

>>What the haitis is he talking about? I disagree. I'm feeling choked up inside at the end of Titanic because I can relate emotionally. Im upset cause I know what its like to love and in losing my love would kill me. Nothing more or less.
<<
What he is saying is you were manipulated into that feeling. The whole premis was to jerk you around and get you feeling sympathetic and sad. The characters in the film were shallow and stereotypical.
The other part of the film was to get you really really mad at rich people, even though the film maker knew full well how structured and segregated society was in those days.

It was cheap armchair moralism. Admit it, you hated all those rich people who got on the boats,instead of the poor people,didn't you? At the very least you were apalled. (and btw, the ships crewman who shot himself in the movie? Never happened during the real incident).

As far as insulting those who are passionate about their craft (sound, lighting, effects). I was not insulting them. I love what they do. In fact they have my utmost empathy. So much talent gets wasted on poorly written scripts and greedy callous producers and/or directors.

My passion/hobby is animaton, both cg and traditional 2d. I've been arguing for years that people should regard it as true art. But because of cheap Sat morning cartoons, and shallow template based story telling by the likes of Disney, it's very hard to get people to accept that. Shrek has given me new hope though.


Lets take Armegeddon for example...
Absolutely great special effects. Best in the world. And a story line deveoped for a 10 year old with severe learning disabilities.

Why was all the flag waving necessary? Are we Americans so insecure we have to constantly be remined how great our country is? I resent a producer exploiting my patriotism for a quick buck. Sorry, thats just me. Bruckheimer was even worse with Pearl Harbor. What a crap fest. Considering what the story should have been about, I was angry as hell. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the craftmanship of ther film. But thats not Bruckheimer, thats the effects director and crew.
Okay, to be totally honest, that movie is where I fell in total lust for Kate Beckinsdale, but that was the only redeeming feature, I literally try to watch every thing she is in. I'm actually excited she married an American.
Just wanted people to know, I'm not some hypocrital snob about all this and can be as suceptable to those influences as anybody else. But just like bad drugs, that doesn't make it alright.

On the other hand..
Take SpiderMan.
Great Special effects, but no better than other high budget films.
What made it a success? Great writing, great acting. Here we have a super hero who is a typical self absored teenager. Wow! Not perfect! In fact his selfish attitudes leads to the death of his Grandfather. Wow! consequences of one actions! What a novel concept. (okay, I'll stop being sarcastic). Though I don't think he exibited any true guilt over what happened. Instead he just takes revenge, as though that absolves him. Plus the producers don't dare give the audience enough time to stop and think about it.

But I'm sure many of you can see the difference between pure shlock like Armegedden and a movie like Spiderman.
(Yes comics are underated)

I'm using these two, to explain, effects do not make a move. Great story, acting and a great team behind the camera make for great film. But only if the goal is honesty and integrity, and even a little humility. A rollercoast can be art, but acheiving that has nothing to do with how excellent the CG department is.
A great script can be the basis for the best movies. But not always. (Antonioni many times would make stuff up and completely change direction during filming, much to the consternation of his actors).

Cassavetes would rewrite his scripts dozens of times during shooting (and inspite of what people say, he most definitely used a script and expected the talent to follow it).

Here's another one.
A sure sign a TV show has no talent hacks for writers is when they put their bad guys in Nazi Uniforms.
Think about it. Take one of the most horrific times in history and reduce it to a cheap easy plot device.
Out of ideas? Make your bad guys Nazis!!!
Even if the show is set in the 24th century or on some other planet, or dimension. Yeah.
It's an easy way to manipulate the audience.

Who with any sort of a conscience isn't offended and apalled by what the Nazis did? Hollywood bean counters are depending on it.

Maybe if you've read this long, you get what I'm saying.


Character based films can give you a differnt type of experience. One that gives you time to reflect, explore and and discover. Takes Cassavetes 'Faces' for example.

The film was made in reaction to his brief stint as a studio director.
It was the most frustrating and demeaning time in his life. Initially he started the film in anger, as a way to expose the underbelly of the Hollywood system.
In the end though, he forgave them and presented them as real human beings with hopes, dreams, faults, and needs. Some brave, some cowards, some decent, some slime balls. But all human and worth caring about.

It was also the first film to explore the sexual needs of older women. In hollywood, at the time, older women were only allowed to be grandmothers, nurses, nuns, or anything that didn't exude any hint of sexuality.

Cassavetes believed that just beacuse you were aging, didn't mean you stopped loving or wanting.
At the time, it was considered scandalous.




Many of you have hit on other issues that R Carney talks about without realizing it .
Things like Integrity. But he also talks about maturity and insight.

What he meant about Anderson and Solenz is that they were simply reacting to Hollywood. Where Hollywood was overly simplistic and sacharin, they were cynical and sardonic. Where Hollywoods characters were artificially good, Andersons and Solenz characters were artificially bad.

R Carney was saying that maybe the truth is showing people as they really are. That being a hero doesn't mean being an artificially perfect person.

That the so called anti hollywood types were acting like high school sophomores who just discovered there parents are real, imperfect human beings, and they can't handle it.
Suddenly, everyone is bad, everyone is full of baloney, and they want you to act shocked because your hero turns out to be a human being with faults and warts. And worse, they pass judgement on them.

What R Carney is really about is using film to explore the human experience without passing judgement on it. He strongly beleives in film as an art form to uplift the species instead of beating it down. He also accepts that politics and other social issues do have their place in film, as long as they keep perspective.

But if you look at what comes out. We are being preached at, told what to think, what to feel, and if we don't agree, then we are low lifes. It's almost like some corrupted type of puritans are making the films. Cowtowing to every special interest, afraid to offend, but ending up offending everyone.



btw he is much less critic, more teacher.

Like I've said before. He's not asking you to agree with everything he says ( I totally disagree with his assesments about the movie Magnolia).
He's asking you to think for yourself, and don't accept the lousy status quo from Hollywood. He even dares you to disagree with him. But if all you are doing is reacting to what he says, instead of thinking things through, then you miss the point.

R Carney hates the GodFather. I always will love the GodFather parts 1 and 2, and because of R Carney, I know why. Because of his statments, instead of being offended, I actually took time and seriously thought through why I like those moves so much. (based on my expriences as a youth in the middle east).

But from the posts I've read, many of you passed judgement without even reading what he has to say.

I mean posting things like..'well he looks like a critic, so that tells me what I need to know', sure... What lazy, sanctomonious crap.

He has written many books and is actually quite the anti-critic. He holds them equally responsible for the sludge coming out of Hollywood. Most of them are sellouts, selling add space, and hoping for lots of swag. Absolutely clueless. And it's gotten worse with internet based critics. Now everyone can make a fool of themselves.

R Carney is simply passionate about wanting better movies. He believes its possible too.
And if you read more of him, you'll find he likes a good rollercoaster ride as much as the next person.

Joe:

In reference to reactions of Ray Carney you said:
"I mean posting things like..'well he looks like a critic, so that
tells me what I need to know', sure... What lazy, sanctomonious
crap."

I'm not sure if that was aimed at me, but just in case I'd like to
point out that what I actually said in my post to Laurence was:

"By the way, I believe he is strictly a film critic, not a filmmaker.
That alone makes him somewhat suspect in my mind."

And, if you read the post again, you'll see that I clearly said this
was before I read any of Carney's writings. I was simply trying to
clear up for Laurence the fact that Carney was not a filmmaker
himself, because Laurence had confused Carney with Cassavetes.
I then immediately went to Carney's website to read some of his
writings (as I said I was going to).

You are right in saying that he is more of a teacher and scholar
than a critic. And there is definitely a difference between that
and a film critic. I simply hadn't read any of his writings, so I
assumed he was a film critic.

Secondly, I never said "that tells me what I need to know."
What I said was, "That alone makes him somewhat suspect in my
mind." And I stand by that statement. I was suspect of him
before I read a word. Is that wrong? I don't think so.

Yes, I hold more highly the opinion and criticisms of those who
actually do, than those who simply analyze. That goes for
anything... painters, writers, artists and occupations of all types.
I'm not saying his opinion doesn't matter, or doesn't hold valid.
I'm just saying that if he is writing about filmmaking, and doesn't
make films himself, he has to prove himself a bit more to me than
someone like Tarkovsky (who also wrote about film).

That was all.
If that makes my comments "lazy, sanctomonious crap" then so be it.

(but I doubt you meant that in a bad way)
:)

-Luis

PS.

sorry to derail the conversation, I just felt I had to clear
up my comments.

By the way Joe:
"I'm actually excited she married an American"
Now who's pushing shallow patriotism?
:) Just kidding around.

One thing I can agree with in CARNEY (The scholar not Joe!) is that his type is easy to spot. He is not a filmaker and I can't readily accept anything out of his mouth in relation to film just by fiat.

That doesnt mean his opinion is any less valid or invalid for that matter. It is merely his opinion. Sides; you know what they say about teachers. "Those who teach..........."

R Carney states "Oliver Stone and Spike Lee don't represent serious filmmaking - They don't make art; they make publicity events–perfectly ordinary movies dressed up with topical gimmicks and stylistic tricks" (Im paraphrasing)

That comment alone warrants a second glance. I cannot even take someone serious with this kind of opinion. Yeah, we do all have our opinions but when its based in myopia it loses value.

Perhpas R Carney is too caught up in having actually known
"Cassavettes" and actually not being "Cassavettes". Kind of like someone who "knew" Jim Morrison; suddenly they have an opinion. Always on the cusp and never will be on the inside.

Carney doesnt like Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, The Terminator, The Godfather, 2001, Blade Runner, or Pulp Fiction; L.A. Confidential, Blood Simple, Blue Velvet, or Psycho...

He even states "I leave Vertigo, Rear Window, and North by Northwest to high schoolers whose idea of art is tricks and games and button-pushing."

Come now. We've all met this type before. They try so hard to be different. They try so hard to go against the grain. Very self-important. How this guys is an instructor is beyond me. If I had to take his course I'd FAIL for sure cause I just couldnt sit there and listen to this kind of dribble.

Tell ya what John,

Don't worry about failing that class, because all ya gotta do is use this simple rule of thumb . . . Hollywood sucks, Arty Garbage rocks!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL

I'm just hav'n a little fun. By the way, I think the "sanctomonious crap" line was actually aimed more my direction, which is fine, as I am definitely the one being the most sarcastic here. Those who want to give need to be able to take.

"I don't wanna die without any scars" -----Tyler Durdan

Anyway, back to the ring.

Now wait a second, Joe . . . You're gonna ditch out Titanic and Terminator but you're not gonna give on SPIDERMAN??????

Buddy . . . I'm not sure you know this but Spiderman is a comic . . . book . . . superhero. As "near perfect heros" go, he's not too far from the top. He's nice, sweet, moral, cares greatly about his aunt/uncle, is a good student, basically the boy next door. Oooooo, but he's unpopular and relatively disliked, the underdog representing the everman . . . untilllllll . . . He suddenly is handed super powers from an extremely unrealistic freak accident, then learns a most important life lesson on why not to abuse his power, and spends the rest of his life kicking villian ass via special fx while fighting for truth, justice, and the american way.

PLEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Can you GET a more hollywood fairy tale represent?????

Ya, ya, his uncle died---typical hollywood lesson to be learned. Ya, ya, didn't get the girl at the end, but we all love his choice not to chance harm to her---typical hollywood marder (which he won't be for long becasue we all know he an the chick hook up later).

I mean, I think trying to use this case to support what you've been saying makes no sense whatsoever.

By the way, (and I'm really not tying to start something here, I'm really not, so please remember at heart all our opinions are valid, but . . . ) IMHO . . .

The FX in Spiderman SUCKKKKKKKEDDDDDD!!!!!!!!

I mean, some were good, but every time Spiderman was swinging or jumping real acrobatically, I was seriously wondering if they had done his stuff with CLAYMATION FX (Not kidding). It was like a bad trip back to the Sinbad movies or Jason and the Argonauts, maybe put a few last arguments for Clash of the Titans. Then again, I think Sam Raimi is the arguement for not trying to do big effects films. His effects always suck. Dark man effects sucked, Army of Darkness effects sucked . . . I mean The Quick and the Dead looked really cool and was a good flick, but it really didn't have many fx anyway. And what was with the Green Goblin Power Ranger? Really bad costume, man. Best thing about the film was the script/acting and really the script in my opinion fell apart around the half way point, went extremely typical as opposed to the cool character development you had in the first half (which was damn close to the comic book origin I might add . . . really liked that).

Dudes, I heard originally James Cameron was asked to do the film, and he asked for a budget that was too high, so they went with Raimi. Now that's a shame. FX would have rocked and the script would have probably been the same as it was. So at least we would have got real looking action out of the deal.

Personally, when I saw Spiderman, I was very dissapointed because it was a rare case where the fx IMHO were bad enough to take me out of the movie. Actually, I saw the flick again on cable and it wasn't nearly as bad for me because it was on a smaller screen (details of fx weren't as prominent).

Anyway, the Spiderman movie was very much typical
Hollywood . . . but . . .

What I do agree with you on is that Armagedon was a sample of the worst of the worst. Now THAT was a BAD MOVIE.

Thats true.

I think SPIDERMAN the film is a really good film; its fun. It s a comic book with good talent and well executed.

UNtil they actually show Spidey flying around. It couldnt look any worse than it does. Giove me old school Donners Superman anyday over this CGI cartoon.

Uuucckkk.

I have visited the Carney page and read some of the stuff there. I am unimpressed. It is nothing I haven't seen before, elsewhere. Viewpoints such as this are not even orginal to film criticism; the same sort of arguments have been used to deride genre fiction, and comic books for that matter, for the better part of the last century. Hating Hitchcock is not even an original stance; it was pretty much the status quo among American critics for the better part of Hitchcock's career.

I could go into a point by point examination of each of Carney's- (as related in the essay I read) points, but I fail to see any profit in such behavior.

That said, I will address a couple of the points made in the essay. When Carny refers to our culture's "Insane faith in science" What is he talking about? The scientific method? Technology? Does he even know- or did it just sound good for the Amen crowd? when he talks about the three day screen writing seminars as symptomatic of our culture's misunderstanding of movies- is he aware that virtually no one takes these things seriously? We also have three day seminars that will teach you how to get rich in real estate- know anyone who ever attended either? I do not, and would not respect anyone who did. Later in the essay, he says that "art" should teach us something. Okay, sure. But the film that teaches person A something may teach person B nothing- or go over something of which Person C was already aware. Is it then, not art?

Furthermore, there is a theme in this writing that I find disturbing, and rather juvinile- agree with me or be marked as one of the stupid.
So be it- it's hardly the first time I've been so designated.


I have lived all over the US, and worked in several different professions, white collar, blue collar, technical, non-technical, clerical and food service. I have met and had the pleasure and displeasure of working with virtually every sort of person imaginable- if people can be broken down into sorts- which, for the most part- they cannot.

That said, I have never met any American who actually reads movie reviews on anything like a regualr basis- or places any faith in them at all.

With two notable exceptions:
I have delt with professional editors, and with many, many, college professors- both of which have, in many, if not most cases- but by no means all- high opinions of themselves, and their ideas, often coupled with an extreme disconnection with reality.
These are the people who, in my experiance, read movie and or book reviews in search of some sort of meaning. Critics watch too much, read too much, and think too much of their own interpritations to be given any real credence. Nothing I saw on Carney's page led me to think differently about him.



What I also fail to see, Joe, is how internalizing someone else's ideas and opinions will lead me to a place where "I can think for myself". In fact, the mere postulation that I do not is, to be frank, and, to use your own diction, both ignorant and sanctimonious.

Just to clarify, Leonard Maltin's book- which according to RC is everywhere, has no place in my house. I do not get my news from CNN, nor do I look to film critics to help me form my opinions of the movies I see. I do however, place a considerable amount of faith- not to a level that could be refered to as insane, though, in the scientific method. As a data collection tool it beats the hell out of assumption and unfounded postulation- unless of course you're attempting to set yourself up as some sort of counter cultural guru- in which case, assume and postulate away, don't worry, somebody will buy into you quackery.

However, I do think that movies can teach us things- sometimes. I also think that movies can be something that carney never sems to talk about- at least in the section of the site that I read- and that is fun- again, though, sometimes.


About Spiderman- how is the evil and rich industrialist (Green Goblin Ranger) any less a "button to be pushed" than Nazi's?


Michael Gibbons

I don't mean to jump in on what is obviously a very deep series of meditations, but I may be able to offer insight on Michael's final remonstrance:

"About Spiderman- how is the evil and rich industrialist (Green Goblin Ranger) any less a 'button to be pushed' than Nazis?"

What the Green Goblin and the snobbish elites depicted in Titanic share is a two-dimensionality of character, overly simplistic depiction that lacks the inner contractions that characterize the introspective nature of humanity. Many filmgoers saw such truncated characterization as proper to a comic book adaptation, but not to a story based on real events, that was ostensibly supposed to depict historical figures, people who actually lived.

Spielberg has alternately, in his films, depicted the Nazis as comical bungling evildoers and as complicated characters.

The world no doubt enjoyed the Indiana Jones version of Titanic, as evidenced by its titanic box office; some, however, were expecting the Schindler's List version, and perceived the movie's string-pulling as an offense on their sensibilities. Among film critics, this faction of filmgoers were given a voice in Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, whose "impeachment" James Cameron called for a letter to the editor.

In this vicious counterattack on Turan's criticisms (which did not relent as the film's revenue exploded and awards tally multiplied), Cameron defended his screenplay's characters as "archetypes," not "clichés," but neither the filmmaker nor the critic pointed out the essential distinction between what Turan had expected from Cameron's film and the film that Cameron actually delivered: a megabudget arthouse flick on the one hand; a comic-book-ization on the other. As viewed from the perspective of the latter, the film can be admitted to stand as an entertaining, if not entirely novel, spectacle, but from the prejudice of the former perspective, Titanic is an inanity, and given its allegedly undeserved popular acceptance, a profound perversion of the cinema.

You know; I understand that there are two sides to every story; but I find it hard pressed to tell the nice little story about the Nazi's; I could care less if they have/had families and children and blah blah blah...

Save that story for someone who cares.

Speilberg didnt treat the Nazi's (in this case Ralph Fiennes character of Amon Goeth) story any different than that of Liams Oskar Schindler.

Both characters were shown in not the best of light and neither character was painted in any different light. There is no need for Sympathy for the Devil in this particular area.

Carney the Scholar is a joke and I cant believe there are people like this that are paid good money to teach our children. I have a suspicion that he doesnt teach but forces his opinion onto his students where they have no choice but to succumb.

I think Titanic was exactly what Cameron wanted it to be. Cameron is both a technical detail fanatic and a grandiose storyteller. The details were represented in the historical accuracy of how the ship actually sank, sets, realistic fx, etc. The rest was like Gone With the Wind . . . an extreme story set in a familiar historical scenereo. Personally, I don't think it's his best film (his best was THE TERMINATOR, and his second best was ALIENS), but it certainly was a good film, both as a story and as a technical account of the ship sinking.

Actually, I think he's going a bit overboard with the whole deep sea thing, obviously a man obsessed. The Abyss, Titanic, then this IMAX flick, now a movie with Selma Heyek about the woman holding the world's record for gearless deep sea diving. To become his friend, all I need is to show up at his door with a tiny model submarine as a gift.

Then again, from what I've heard about Cameron, I'm not so sure he's friends with anyone . . . cept maybe Arnold and Bill Paxton.

Jim has a motto:

It's my f****** film and if you dont like it find someplace else to work.

Titanic was a great film. Fun fun eye candy. The Professor felt it extreme in its portayal of the aristocratic society? Im sure thats what the third class pasengers would think.

Were all of the 1st class passengers like Billy Zane? No of course not. In fact there are some brave men that went down with that boat that were in first and second class. In fact, Billy Zane and his 'henchman' David Warner are the only characters in the film I recall being portayed in this manner; sans Frances Fisher character who later in the film doesnt look too pleased about the chain of events.

By the way, John, my compliments on your signature quote there. . . . . god, how I love that film.

>>By the way Joe:
"I'm actually excited she married an American"
Now who's pushing shallow patriotism?<<
Not shallow patriotism, I just find English women
incredilby sexy. They usually won't give us yanks the
time of day, so it's great when one does. I'm happy for
him is all.

Man, talk about misinterpretations..

Seems everyone mistook what I said about the Nazis. I wasn't talking about the Nazis, I was talking about lazy writers who exploit what we all feel toward the Nazis. geez. And Cameron was jerking us all around with stereotypes, archetypes have more depth. And as far as his film. Well , it's my time and my money I just wasted. I enjoyed the film, but it is not 'art' by any means. It is very well crafted escapist entertainment. A visual version of a Danielle Steele novel. Women love that stuff. Nothing wrong with that either.

Also, what is supposed to happen is happening. Everyone is discussing and having a POV.

And Laurence, yes my comment about sanctimony was directed at your. But the response was inacurrate. I blame my third Scotch on that one. Sorry.

I was using Spiderman as compared to other scifi/fantasy movies. There was lots to complain about, and the CG was obvious (which means bad), but the story, poor as it was, is still a cut above most the other films. X-Men 2 should have been better, could have been better, but taking that long to figure out the hideout was insulting.

I was using films I'm sure most of us have seen. I could talk about Godard, Bunel, Truffault,Jon Jost...(who I know), but how many here have seen their films? I didn't want to discusss/debate by throwing in references many might not know about. Thats a cheap way to win a debate.

Robert,
You are quite right, I have no issue with different level of character depth in different types of movies. That said, originality is originality, and cheap, over used plot devices are cheap, over used plot devices, regardless of where they can be found, weather it is in a "comic book movie" or in so called "serious cinema".
My evil, rich industrialist question was posed in direct response to the two comments below.



Origianlly posted by Joe Carney
"On the other hand..
Take SpiderMan.
Great Special effects, but no better than other high budget films.
What made it a success? Great writing, great acting. Here we have a super hero who is a typical self absored teenager. Wow! Not perfect! In fact his selfish attitudes leads to the death of his Grandfather. Wow! consequences of one actions! What a novel concept. (okay, I'll stop being sarcastic). Though I don't think he exibited any true guilt over what happened. Instead he just takes revenge, as though that absolves him. Plus the producers don't dare give the audience enough time to stop and think about it.


Here's another one.
A sure sign a TV show has no talent hacks for writers is when they put their bad guys in Nazi Uniforms.
Think about it. Take one of the most horrific times in history and reduce it to a cheap easy plot device.
Out of ideas? Make your bad guys Nazis!!!
Even if the show is set in the 24th century or on some other planet, or dimension. Yeah.
It's an easy way to manipulate the audience.

Who with any sort of a conscience isn't offended and apalled by what the Nazis did? Hollywood bean counters are depending on it."

In the second of these statements Joe rails against the use of Nazi's as a plot device in ANY context: "Even if the show is set in the 24th century". I think this validates my question as it stands.

"About Spiderman- how is the evil and rich industrialist (Green Goblin Ranger) any less a "button to be pushed" than Nazi's?"

Furthermore:
His last statement could easily be changed to: Who with any sort of conscience isn't offended and appaled by what evil, rich, industrialist weapons manufacturers have done?

That would seem an awfully good reason for the afore mentioned "Hollywood bean counters" to select the green goblin as the featured villian in the Spiderman movie- it's a quick and easy hate. A button to be pushed. The cheap way out. Something Joe, by his own admission hates, and rails against the rest of us for being duped by.



Thanks,
Michael

//Here's another one.
A sure sign a TV show has no talent hacks for writers is when they put their bad guys in Nazi Uniforms.
Think about it. Take one of the most horrific times in history and reduce it to a cheap easy plot device.
Out of ideas? Make your bad guys Nazis!!!
Even if the show is set in the 24th century or on some other planet, or dimension. Yeah.
It's an easy way to manipulate the audience.//

I take you didn't like the season ender of Enterprise?

//Here's another one.
A sure sign a TV show has no talent hacks for writers is when they put their bad guys in Nazi Uniforms.
Think about it. Take one of the most horrific times in history and reduce it to a cheap easy plot device.
Out of ideas? Make your bad guys Nazis!!!
Even if the show is set in the 24th century or on some other planet, or dimension. Yeah.
It's an easy way to manipulate the audience.//

I take you didn't like the season ender of Enterprise?

Laurence Maher

Jaws is one of the reasons I want to make films! :)

Titanic was indeed PURE ESCAPIST ENTERTAINMENT; does this mean its not art? This is the big question I think. Can we define art or is subjective to only each person as in "One mans Monet is anothers Velvet Elvis"

"This is the big question I think."

Art is an instrument to revelation: "art is the lie that reveals the truth." Picasso's aphorism is not a meaningless platitude: it does nothing less than show all of art's meaning, and distinguish art from other human works.

Someone said earlier in the thread that sometimes, art teaches us something. No; teaching is a logical process, in which some truth is shown to us by reason. Revelation is an analogical process, in which truth is stricken upon, each one of us for ourselves, by intuitive faculties proper to living beings. (In the history of science, there are many great examples of discoveries as the result of analogical thinking: Newton hitting upon universal gravitation after witnessing a falling apple; Kekulé's dreaming up the ring structure of benzene in the form of circles of fiery serpents biting their tails.)

For art to reveal to us something about the world in which we live is banal--powerful art reveals to us something about ourselves.

One thing further. Labeling one work "art" is said to be subjective, but this is really not so. "Subjectivity" is another term for "affective blindness," vain lying our subconsciouses submit us to about ourselves. As all of us have the capacity for introspection, and the ability to spiritualize and sublimate truths about ourselves, what is art and what is not art should ideally an objectively qualifiable standard. Whether any of us is sufficiently capable of checking our repressions is another thing to be argued altogether.

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt :
Someone said earlier in the thread that sometimes, art teaches us something. ////

I believe I am the guilty party on that one. I was paraphrasing R. Carney, however, or my misunderstanding of whatever it is he's trying to say, so please don't hold me to that statement.

I like your discription better.
Although, I think that truly great art reveals or can reveal something about the world we live in and about ourselves- and often our place within the whole.

There is a chapter in Mellville's "Moby Dick" entiltled Fast fish or loose fish" which seems to me to be illustrative of what you are saying. It begins as almost a verbal game and ends up asking the reader a very simple, yet very profound question about him/herself. A question that although simple, is not easily answered.

Are you familiar with it?

Hemmingway and Faulkner, at their best, both do this for me as well.

Michael

Well, not to be a stickler, but it sounds rather ridiculous and pompous to even discuss whether or not something is "art."

To do it in that way insinuates that all "art" is inherently good and has value in some sort of objective way. Titanic is surely a piece of 'art.' It also happens to be a piece of something else (in my opinion of course).

Like everything else, there is good and bad within 'art.'
To say something, like Titanic for example, is not art begs the question, "then what is it?"


As another side note, Robert, I would argue that there is art in the world that does teach. And just because it does so analytically does not devalue it as art. How would you catagorize documentary films? The work of Errol Morris for example?

But, I do see where you are coming from....
and not to get too zen here, it may be more fitting to say
that although the best art may not teach us, we do learn something from it.

-Luis

ps.
i swear to god i'm not this pretentious in real life.
:)

<<I take you didn't like the season ender of Enterprise?<<
Keith I was refering to Star Trek Voyager when they got captured by the Hirogen and were forced to replay WWII simulations in the holodeck. Really sad, and it was a two episode story. I kept watching out of habit, but the show lost what little respect I had left for it.

Another was 'Angel', one of the episodes had the 'Bad Demons' put on Nazi uniforms. I never watched another episode after that.


Worse.. it promotes a stereotype about Germans that hasn't been accurate for over 50 years. Ask anyone who has lived there since 1950 (like myself).

Remember, only a small minority of the German population was allowed to join the Nazi party prior to and during WWII. It's been officially outlawed over there since then.

I realize we need to never forget what happened, but crappy TV shows aren't the answer. I'm willing to bet they actually desensitize us more than anything.

Luis, true art is neither good nor bad.

That is a moral or somtimes ethical judgement, based on personal prejudices.

Remember, our own village idiot er.. puritan er.. US Attorney General (Ashcroft) felt the need to cover up the bared breast of the statue (relief) of Justice. Considering his background, I guess we shouldn't be surprised he got aroused by a concrete boob.
Made us the laughing stock of the world (justified btw).

"How would you catagorize documentary films?"

A documentary that does not strike at the eternal, superconscious truth, that does not in some way entreat the viewer to "know thyself," that does not reach, as if for the stars, toward ever-greater lucidity and objectivity, the very ingredients of consciousness, is either a mere exercise in depiction, or propaganda, or pornography.

To call such a goal (be it intentional or intuitive) pomposity, or to dismiss it out of hand by labeling it pedantry, is little more than a vain denial of the condition of joy in knowledge, a repression, a shying away from revelation. In short, it is missing the point.

What I'm defining here as "art," a student of critical studies would probably label "high art," (i.e., that which makes the symbolically-encoded call of the superconscious, proper to myths and dreams), as opposed to "low art"--the "high concept" hook, the fascination proper to novelty, fantasy, or voyeurism. Take STAR WARS--a splendid example of a pastiche of high art and low art elements. It's the spaceships and laser guns of Flash Gordon welded to the austere bushido cult of Akira Kurosawa films. It's flightly hill lore fraught with fairies and goblins interwoven with imposing Greek tragedy populated with gods and monsters. The best film--the best literature, painting, song--that which hopes to stand the test of time--neglects high art elements at its peril. The reason for this is low art elements are low-investment, ephemeral pleasures, but the human condition cries out for that which is permanent and perfect (a predicament that has inevitably led to all mythologies and religions). We desire to be more than who we are; we feel like we are angels trapped in the bodies of brutes. High art reflects this immanent intentionality towards a more conscious evolution, and so we crave it, and cherish it more than we do low art. How can something so integral to the human moral destiny be discarded as academic pretense? Vanity, vanity. Those with ears to hear, let them hear.

Wow, some interesting points of view in this thread.
I find this very fascinating, and I think that now I am
beginning to understand where some of you are coming from.

Joe:
"true art is neither good nor bad. That is a moral or somtimes
ethical judgement, based on personal prejudices."

So are you saying that art merely is? It is a noun, like any other.
I can see that.

Now that leaves me asking, as I pointed out before, what is it?
We keep pointing to different works and saying 'that is art, that
is not.' But there seems to be no definition of the term. We are
beginning to sound a bit like Jesse Helms talking about
pornography, "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it."

What definition can you possibly give of 'art' that would
not rely on some sort of 'judgement' or 'personal prejudice'
(to use your terms).

And, as a side note, simply using the terms 'good' and 'bad' does
not necessarily denote a moral or ethical judgement. It is simply
a judgement on whether or not a thing is effective. Refering to a
artistic work as "bad" is no more of a moral or ethical judgement
than is calling a chair with a broken leg a "bad" chair.

I still believe that there is 'good' and 'bad' art.
I'm not saying those designations are objective, obviously
they are not, they are judgements. Just not moral or ethical ones.



Robert:
"A documentary that does not strike at the eternal,
superconscious truth, that does not in some way entreat the
viewer to "know thyself," that does not reach, as if for the stars,
toward ever-greater lucidity and objectivity, the very ingredients
of consciousness, is either a mere exercise in depiction, or
propaganda, or pornography"

Okay, would that then be your definition of 'art'?

And if so, I assume it is safe to say that whether or not
something is 'art' is simply a subjective judgement call,
and therefore based solely on the experience of the viewer?

In which case, one man's Monet is truly another man's Velvet Elvis, as John said earlier.

-Luis

PS.
Out of curiosity Robert, could you give me an example of
a work that you feel fits the description you gave?


__________________________________

Well, I guess Robert was editing his post as I was typing, so a few of my questions seem irrelevant now.

"To call such a goal (be it intentional or intuitive) pomposity, or to dismiss it out of hand by labeling it pedantry, is little more than a vain denial of the condition of joy in knowledge, a repression, a shying away from revelation. In short, it is missing the point.

Did someone here call that goal pompous or pedantic?
I hope I didn't give you that impression.


"that which makes the symbolically-encoded call of the superconscious, proper to myths and dreams"

So are you saying that is your definition of art?
A symbolically encoded call of the superconscious, proper to myths and dreams?

I just want to make sure I understood you correctly before I respond with too much detail. (that and I need to think about it)
:)

We're getting pretty heavy here.

I can do no better than to quote the words of my favorite author. All true art consists of revealing the vision of the splendor of life, the vision of beauty. To do this, art must reverse false idealization; it must uncover what is stupid, cowardly and repulsive in deformation. Art, in all its forms, is the mirror of life, of both its formation and its deformation. Literature awakens the sense of beauty by unmasking ugliness. Its means vary from the tragic to the comic. The tragic is the essential saddening that occurs when a man endowed with an intense vital impulse is a prey to deformation; his life is seen in its tragic aspect when art—without becoming didactic—brings out the essential truth: the link between guilt and punishment (Greek tragedy, Shakespeare). The comic is the ridiculous unmasked. Laughter rises up irresistibly when vanity is unmasked, when in an unexpected and sudden way, the game of wrong motivation is discovered, when behind the torn away mask of false justification—which has a tendency to go as far as false self-idealization—behind the mask of convention, appear stupidity, cowardice, repulsiveness. Put differently, laughter appears when suddenly the absurdity of the affective thought that nevertheless dominates the world is laid bare.

Nice.

Robert,

For those of us who may be less well read, mind telling us who your favorite author is?
:)


It seems in the end that we all agree on one thing at least,
that 'art' is in the eye of the beholder.

And although we've strayed pretty far from Laurences original post, I'm glad ... good conversations always stray.

-Luis

Dudes,

Really nice. Cool convo.

Actually, I'd agree with the whole Nazi thing, it's generally really lame and overdone, save really for just the one film Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Now I know this sounds kind of ludicrous, for pretty much the whole movie we've got going on the stereo-typical Hollywood Nazzi thing. The reason I think this one stands out is that sometimes there's a type of villian cliche that begs to be done right. I'm not saying it's not cliche, but even cliches can be done right. I think Raiders took the typical Nazi cliche and turned it into a very valid plot device, which was this . . .

You've got Jones, who really symbolizes the "serial action hero" of the 1940's, right, back when our parents and/or grand parents used to go to the movies and watch pretty much the same guy (only not as cool as Raiders made him, hee, hee). This cliche character, Jones, set in the 1940's, almost needs the cliches around the 40's to get one into the mood, if you are going to make a "salutatory film" to this particular genre. Kind of like, you can't make a Superman movie right without Lex Luthor (slightly different, but you get the idea).

Now . . .

You also have to take into account the originality of the idea of someone digging up the Ark of the Covenant, and realize that if you're going to make a movie in the 40's about someone wanting to rule the world, their really isn't any better true to life person of this than Hitler. I mean, there was also Musolinni and all, but let's face it, the big guy was Hitler.

So . . .

I'm way all right to finally have found an "original cliche" (lolol if there is such a thing) in the whole Nazi idea. The idea that an American-government-hired archeologist was trying to beat an obsessed madman to the punch in aquiring the greatest possible weapon of the age seemed to fit quite nicely, and in some ways spookily realistic, to the ways things would happen (beyond the unrealistic magic behind the ark, which of course some religious buffs would also buy).

In other words, the script used many cliches, yes, but unlike the norm, it used them well, very very well, used them as something to ADVANCE the story at hand, not CARRY the story along.

And personally, I felt that the character Jones in the first film (as opposed to the others) was much more interesting, in that he was not in it for the government or for somebody else nearly as much as he was in it for STRICTLY HIMSELF. I don't care what anyone says, in the first film, the reason he was so awesome was that he represented a realistic human characteristic. JONES WAS GREEDY. HE WAS A GREEDY, OBSESSED MAN, WILLING TO KILL PEOPLE IN HIS WAY OF GETTING HIS HANDS ON THAT ARK!!!

I mean, not as "chaotically evil" as say people specifically looking to take over the world, but Jones didn't have any qualms about Xing people left and right during that truck chase.

Really, the only thing that made him a hero was that he was MORE moral than the Nazis, which really all is relative, now isn't it?

Of course, they screwed all that up with all the stupid kids and crap in number 2. Funny how in Raiders, he was smiling at the big bald guy he was fighing by the plane just before he watched him get a propeller in his head . . . and yet, in temple of Doom, he was willing to try to save some guy who just tried to smash his head in a giant bolder-crusher. Now that's good sequel character follow through.

And don't get me started about the 3rd movie. Now there the Nazis were a lot worse because it had been done once and done right, and I think they were just running out of treasure ideas, so they changed the ark to the grail (which grail was cool treasure, but . . . . ) and tried to make the same flick only this time Marion turned into his stupid dad.

I would have seen the movie 200 times if Indy at the very end found a time machine, he and his dad went through it, they ended up back fighting the Turbin guy with the boulder crusher in Temple of Doom again, and his dad ends up spouting "JUNIOR, JUNIOR, JUNIOR, JUNIOR, JUNIOR, JUNIOR!!!" Like the stupid annoying dope he is one too many times, and Indy drop-kicks Connery into the crusher feet first so he has time to scream and beg and plead the way Quint did in Jaws, watching his body get devoured, until finally we see his head explode like a bloody melon, and then Indy and the Turbin guy start laughing, hug, and go have a beer. Then they trade stories about their separate adventures while the 2 of them, now drunk, make a sport out of "who can chunk the children in the crusher funnier", the last of course, would be Short Round, who ends up getting it the worst of it becasue it turns out the Turbin guy is a pedifile that's got a thing for asian boys. Meanwhile, Indy runs into Willie again, (the stupid annoying blonde singer) and sense the Turbin guy is off having fun, he gets lonely, ties her up with his whip, goes forward in time with her to a point where there are also "alternate reality machines", Then he goes to our current reality where spielberg and willie (now considered Kate Capshaw) are married, and Indy forces him and Lucas and also his alter-ego Harrison Ford to watch wille get tortured to death in retaliation for making his charcter go through 2 really lame sequels.

. . . . Did I mention I only like the first movie?

:)

This is a great conversation. So many twists and turns and you nailed Indiana Jones on the head.

The first one is one of the best films I have ever seen; they took it seriously (wow, this goes back to what I had said earlier). It was a world they invented and they treated it real.

The sequels were crap. As a child I liked them (I was 13 when Part 2 came out).. The Third was just plain embarrassing.

Marcus is turned into a baboon. Connery is a doof for sure and even Sallah is reduced in size.

Part 4 is on the way and I just pray they go back to the roots. Look at LORD of the RINGS; they totally took it seriously. Such a ridiculous little world but it is presented ina what if this happended scenario.

I hope they dont screw up 4. They will though.

If you had told me six years ago that the guy responsible for "Meet the Feebles" was going to do Lord of The Rings, I would have been depressed for weeks. What do you know, miracles can happen in this industry.

Wow, thats a great point. Scary to think?

Hell lets not forget about the alumni of Roger Corman!

http://www.newconcorde.com/alumni.htm

Well, looks like we've strayed again.... fine by me.

John, funny you should say what you did, because I was just having a conversation with a friend of mine today about this very topic.

I think you hit at the heart of one of the most important things
that makes a great movie. You said "they took it seriously."

To me one of the biggest problems with most films I see is that
you get the feeling the the director feels superior to his characters.
That this material is somehow beneath him.

It's something I've been discussing with a few friends of mine,
because I can't really get a handle on it, on where I get this
feeling. But, many people seem to agree ... and just like John
pointed out 'they took it seriously.'

What is it that gives us that feeling?
What is it in the first Indiana Jones that let's us see that
Speilberg respected his characters, and respected the material?

And what is it about something like.... Van Helsing that gives
me the feeling that Sommers not only doens't respect his
characters, but doesn't even see them as individuals?

Just curious on any thoughts.

-Luis

ps.
Robert, when you get a chance, I'd still like to know the author
of that quote.
:)
Thanks.

I think it goes back to violating the universe that was created. Instead of 'What if....' it becomes 'Why not....'

Im not sure what goes through writers/directors/producers minds when they do films like this:

The Gymnast Jurrassic daughter
The Little Chinese Karate expert beating up goons in INDY 2
The absurdity of the entire 3rd Jones film
Val helsing and The Mummy and Mummy 2

Oh jeez; I could go on and on. I want 'What if....' Dont insult me with childish gimmicks.

Look at the original ESCAPE FROM NEW YORk; took it very serious and I think this is a classic film.

Then there was ESCAPE FROM LA; which obviously was a big joke; Snake is surfing now and he's a 'baller'?

What about the last James Bond film? James is surfing the big waves into a mission; very clandestine. Or he's Wind Surfing a massive tidal wave? Come on.

I really dont have a clue as to why this happens. Do people like it? I mean, the films in this matter gross millions. IS this what mainstream moviegoers want? A big fat joke of a film where there are no rules or guidelines? Just an anything goes scenario?

Not me. In fact, that is what disapoints me about modern cinema is the lack of seriousness and plausiblity in the film. Im not saying everything has to be '21 Grams' depressing (which I loved by the way) but I need to at least 'buy it'.

John,

Again you brought up a good point when you said:
"but I need to at least 'buy it'"

I think what might be getting under my skin with these films is
that you get the feeling that the reactions and actions of the
characters are simply not believable, they are not sincere.
And if a character in a film doesn't take his world seriously, and doesn't believe it, why should I?

You mention that a film needs to be 'plausible.'
I would probably say that it is not the world, or even the
storyline that needs to be 'plausible,' but it's the reactions
of the characters that need to be 'plausible.'

A human in the future, or the past, or in outerspace, is still
a human. And we can all feel insincerity when we see it.

-Luis

See again,

I don't think the character needs to take things seriously . . . as long as HE NEVER TOOK THINGS SERIOUSLY. As long as you stick with what you presented early on, when you were "creating the character and universe", you're okay.

I mean, Austin Powers is nothing but ridiculous, everything about it, but that's okay, because it was never supposed to be anything but ridiculous.

Indy started serious then became ridiculous in the sequels. That doesn't work. Most sequels do this. That's why they don't work.

As for why people pay to see the movies, well, that I'm not sure. What I do know is this: Not nearly as many people go to see the movies to get the millions. Prices are much higher now.

Also, if you notice, the movies that make franchises are the good originals. The ones that start bad ususally don't make the serious killer cash. I mean, they make cash, but not as much . . . not NEARLY as much.

Again, the unfortunate fact is that massive advertising to the public "COWS" will make money for the most part. That doesn't surprise me that people are stupid enough to buy into advertising and the status quo. What surprises me is that the studios are so stupid that they don't realize that a GOOD sequel to the Matrix would pull in three times (or maybe 4 or 5) as much. That's why in this thread I went off once about how lazy Hollywood has become in general as filmmakers. With that type of backing and power, there's simply no excuse for a bad movie . . . save for spoiled studio execs and talented, yet rich guys that lost "the beginners mind" years ago.

Ya, John

One of my biggest complaints with Indy 3 was the destruction of marcus/sallah. Man, talk about disrespecting characters.

By the way,

Sense so much sequel talk goes on here, I think it would be a riot to find out what everyone considers to the the worst sequel of all time.

Now the way I personally define the worst sequel is . . .

The sequel that fell the greatest distance from the one before it.

So for instance, even though Lethal Weapon 3 was one of the worst sequels ever, it really wasn't surprising, being that Lethal Weapon 2 showed plently of downfall from the first film. So there was kind of a cushion provided by the stepping stone from 2 to 3. (Then again, Lethal 3 may have been the worst sequel of all time compared to even the second one . . . lololol).

Anyway

Here's my vote:


Larry thinks the worst sequel compared to the one before it was . . .



ESCAPE FROM L.A.!!!!!!!



Ya, John, you had to remind me of that one. LOLOLOOLOL


OHHHHHH LOLOLOLOL


Could it possibly have been ANY WORSE??????

You know, both Carpenter and Russell both claimed that the movie was in fact an ATTEPTED FARCE . . . but I'm not so sure. You never heard that BEFORE the movie tanked at the box office, now did you?

I think they were so embarrassed by the numbers and reviews, that they turned around and tried to make up for it by claiming they tried to make it bad.

Ya, right . . . . nice try guys . . . or poor try as the case may be.


Indy 3 would have taken it for sure if it wasn't for Temple of Doom before it.

Star Wars Episode I had a little Ewok cushion from Jedi.

However, a close second to Escape from L.A. was HIGHLANDER 2!!!!!


Man, that was so bad, and same cast and same director and everything? What happened?


Matrix Reloaded was DEFINITELY in the running.

Die Hard 2 was DEFINITELY in the running.

I'm probably gonna get knocked for this, but I actually liked Jurassic Park (the original) very much (not nearly like Jaws, but perhaps I expected any Spielberg flick at that point to be candy-coated crap, and I didn't see it that way . . . ) so . . . the Gymnastic-Raptor routine in the second one for me brought Jurrasic Park 2 up for consideration.

Plenty-O-others, too, but I think it's gonna be hard to beat Escape From L.A. From a huge bald guy with nail-ridden bats to shooting hoops . . . man, it was just unbelievable.

Even worse, Escape from LA plundered so much from Escape from NY. It was almost the same plot.

Sense I'm staring this stuff off, it's fun to do it with lots of categories. For now let's also vote on best and worst remakes.

My vote for best is John Carpenter's THE THING

My vote for worst is . . . . .

?????

mmmmmmmm

Well, as a movie it really wasn't that bad, but the thing is . . .

PSYCHO. . . because the remakers were so lame, they pretty much made the EXACT SAME MOVIE. It wasn't even really a remake, I'd say it was more of an upgrade with current actors substituted for the older ones. Save for the ending, I think (if memory serves) is was nearly shot for shot and line for line the first movie. They could have done just as well using the old film and computer imaging in the new actors. I mean, if you're gonna have the balls to remake something as classic as Psycho, take a leap, man, don't run up to the edge, try to stop because you decide to chicken out, and then accidentally fall off the ledge like a puss!!!!!

Based on the premis of the "virtual upgrade" as opposed to a "remake" is why it gets my vote. LAME.....

The Zoltan Korda version of "The Fourth Feathers" I think was the third version of that ever made. It is THE great British empire adventure.

And then came the version by Shekhar Kapur in 2002. So lifeless, dry and lame.

PSYCHO. . . because the remakers were so lame, they pretty much made the EXACT SAME MOVIE.

To be fair, that was exactly what Van Sant set out to do. Which does it make it a good idea (truthfully, I can't understand why anyone with a real budget would do this). He didn't make a the exact same movie becuase he couldn't think of a better way to remake but because that's what he wanted to do. So at least he had a vision. Of sorts.

Along the same lines, I saw the shot-for-shot remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark that three 10 year olds made, it was really great - it's up there as one of the best 'remakes' of all time.

Lolololol,

Nice, Joshua, nice.

You guys are killing and Larry and I have exacting thoughts. Hmmmm...

I loved Jaws, Jaws 2 was underated, Jaws 3 was siily good in a 3D ridiculous kind of way but.....................................................

JAWS 4 was sooooooo baaaaaaaaaadddddddd. I thought I would die watching it. Horrible. I can deal with 3 being a 3D gimmick and it had QUAID, THOMPSON, GOSSETT JR and that flash in the pan blonde who is actually a good actress; so it worked for me. I can still watch it and think "Sigh, guilty pleasure shark movie"

But Part 4 was like "Huh? What the heck is this? And Caine was in it! HE is so cool and he did JAWS 4!" Now the shark is hunting the mom down? what?


John Carpenters THE THING is so epic it deserves a remake right this second; on one condition...

John Carpenter doesnt get to do it and KURT RUSSELS character is dead. BRing in the rescue team, they haul the bodies off and fly them to be shipped back to America and on the way over... Well you get it now. But Im not talking about re-hasing the same plot. I want the virus to spread while off the boat in New York and the end of the movie basically shows some kind of THING apocalypse just like the good doctor predicted in the first one.

Oh jeez, Ill write and direct it, Fine.



STAR WARS (New ones)

Baaaad. Uckkkky. Crap. Those Ewoks in JEDI are not enough to cusion this blow. Could I be ever more let down than this? And they are still bad. The THIRD one will be as bad as the first two.

SUPERMAN 3

Now 2 wasnt as baaaaaaaaad as it seems. It does have ZOD and thats kind of cool (Bow down before ZOD!). Lex was back and perfect as always is Hackman. But 3? Richard Pryor? What?

First Blood was a great film; I still love it. RAMBO 2 and 3? Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaddd!

Rocky 3 4 5 and.........................

All of these were bad. YEs. Even the one with Mr. T and the one with the Russian.

How about GREASE 2? OMG that was horrible!
Stayin Alive anyone? Agggghhhhhh!
Back to the future 2 and 3 were horrible.
Beverly Hills Cop 3 sucked!
Another 48 hours? Big mistake.
Poltergeist 2 and 3
UNder Seige 2

I have to add Riddick.

Pitch Black. Tight, low budget, small cast, very focused. Good for what it was.

Riddick. Bloated, took place on too many planets, left lots of things hanging, incoherent editing.

Pitch Black was a great surprise. Not perfect but one of the better Scifi's to come out in recent memory.

I don't know.... I think the most underratted scifi movie is probably "The Rock." I mean, Nicholas Cage as a biochemist? Come on, THAT is science fiction.

:)

In fact, it was so unbelievable, next time you watch the movie pay attention to how many times Cage makes reference to the fact that he's "just a biochemist." It's as if they realized no one would be able to believe it, and they have to constantly remind the audience.

Okay, totally off topic I know...just couldn't help but throw a jab at that movie in this thread.

-Luis

While were doggin films...

I saw PAYCHECK last night and it completely sucked. John Woo continues to be the best made for TNT hollywood director. Horrible film.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

I have a deep and abiding love for the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Something about a group of people in the wrong place in the wrong time with no real backstory or exposition. Somehow they made it work - it's a wonderful example of low budget production.

The new one just missed the mark entirely. I don't what it was, but it had no majic.

Although I totally digged the remake (and watching Jessica run around in the outfit) I can see where someone might not; especially since it stems from a total classic cult film. Thats a tough one to please.

Lololol on all the bad flicks!


Ahhh, they make the good ones so much better don't they . . . .


OHHHHHHH!!!!!

Joshua!!!! I've heard about the "remake" of Raiders the kids did and couldn't wait to see it. I heard they did a fantastic job for what it was. Heard the built sets, slid under the truck, everything!!!!!! I was actually envious because whether or not I like it, there WAS someone more obsessed with that movie as a kid than I was (I thought I took the cake that I actually learned how to use a whip as a weapon and climing device . . . I literally could latch on to a tree and swing from branch to branch. I actally tracked down the guy who creates the stunt whips for the movies to I can later buy the exact durable stunt version . . . now that's a GEEEEEK!!!!) But the whole movie?????? My god, what an undertaking!!!! I MUST SEE THIS FILM . . .

Joshua, how do I get a hold of this???

I think they are showing it at festivals currently. It'' be available hopefully soon and hopefully GEorge will let them release it. I totally want to see this.

I took the wife and Jeff Kramer and his better half to see this juvy Raiders remake about a year ago in Austin at the Alamo Cinema DraftHouse. We've got an entire thread on it here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11037). Enjoy,