NationStates Jolt Archive

Everything is sex or politics, so everything before the watershed hour is politics.

After reading a few arguments on whether or not "300" was "anti-war" or "homophobic" or "hatefully opposed to the development of oranges" or "whatever"...I must ask: Is entertainment becoming too political, or too symbolic?

I've been working on a creative-writing assignment for the past five weeks, and many sources I have read state that the first goal of storytelling is "telling a good story": theme, symbolism, morality plays, etc. come SECOND. And I agree. I am of the opinion that a storytellers first goal is to entertain the audience, NOT to preach.

And when such philosophical preachiness does not exist in a story, some pretentious fuckwits have to go and FIND or in some cases MAKE UP such things in the work.

Seriously...whatever happened to just going to the theatres or sitting down in an armchair to read a book, just for the sake of entertainment? Have we all become so anal retentive that we can't just listen to a good story without raising our hands and ask "isn't such language hateful?"

CONTEXT, my friends, CONTEXT.

So please, I ask you, and I ask those that you know who are like this, to please just relax and enjoy the show.

[/rant]

*dies*

It doesn't have to be political or symbolic, and much of what passes for entertainment deals with neither.

But if you want your audience to care about it later, there needs to be some substance to your work, and both are ways of adding that substance.

Vapid art can be entertaining, but will ALWAYS be inferior to art with meaning. This goes for any kind of art - music, painting or writing.

Unless something is very badly done, you should be able to enjoy it on at least some level.

Even if it isn't political or symbolic, some dipshit will make it political or symbolic. For instance; Spongebob endorses homosexuality. :rolleyes:

Even if it isn't political or symbolic, some dipshit will make it political or symbolic. For instance; Spongebob endorses homosexuality. :rolleyes:

This is precisely what I am talking about. Can't it just be a funny cartoon?

And I disagree that just because a work doesn't have some "symbolic" meaning, that it is somehow inferior.

And for the record, I'm not saying that I dislike works that make you think. First and foremost, I value a work for its storytelling, but if a writer or director can intertwine a natural meaning within a work, that makes it all the better.

Please understand that what I am more peeved about are the people who find and create symbolism and theme where there is none.

I've been working on a creative-writing assignment for the past five weeks, and many sources I have read state that the first goal of storytelling is "telling a good story": theme, symbolism, morality plays, etc. come SECOND. And I agree. I am of the opinion that a storytellers first goal is to entertain the audience, NOT to preach.

I disagree. The only goal of storytelling is for the artist to express themselves in any which way they desire. If symbolism was consistently ignored in order to create a "good story", we wouldn't have works like Animal Farm, for example.

A work, any work, does not exist in a vacuum and will be judged and read in the context of both the world and time that created it and the one in which it is viewed. So anything will be held up to the light it is created and read in.

How you read a work is up to you as an audience member, but if you're not going to engage in it in some critical manner you are sort of taking your hands off the wheel.

And as an artist, if you have nothing to say, then why should I listen to you?

I disagree. The only goal of storytelling is for the artist to express themselves in any which way they desire. If symbolism was consistently ignored in order to create a "good story", we wouldn't have works like Animal Farm, for example.

As I stated, this I have no problem with. It is just personally not my cup of tea.

It's true. Even porn is affected from what I hear, with such new titles as "Trickle-Down Economics".

It's true. Even porn is affected from what I hear, with such new titles as "Trickle-Down Economics".

Quality.

As I stated, this I have no problem with. It is just personally not my cup of tea.

Fair enough. I was mainly taking issue with the idea that there is a set order of priorities that an artist must follow, not with anything else you said.

But as CToaN said, any story, no matter the content, is going to be analysed for underlying messages put into the context of the era in which it was produced. It's done with Shakespeare, and it's even done with Quentin Tarantino movies.

Quality.

Thank you, I'm here 'til Thursday.

Why does everything need to be political or symbolic in entertainment?

It doesn't. But, for some people, things being 'political' or 'symbolic' IS entertainment.

So - 'everything' doesn't need to be... but 'some things' do.

So - 'everything' doesn't need to be... but 'some things' do.

Example: South Park

WITH politics etc.: Hilarious
W/O: A bunch of fart jokes

if its done well, a movie SHOULD give you something to talk about afterwards.

a war movie that comes out when we are at war should resonate with our current situation. it doesnt have to pass any test of proper anti-warishness. the prowar/warrior sensibility of 300 gives us a forum to talk about how WE feel about war and those who fight it for us.

the only responsibility that a movie about actual historical events has it to be somewhat accurate in how it portrays them. i think the spartans attitude toward fighting was accurately portrayed. to pander to someone's idea of how they SHOULD have been would ruin the movie.

if its done well, a movie SHOULD give you something to talk about afterwards.

a war movie that comes out when we are at war should resonate with our current situation. it doesnt have to pass any test of proper anti-warishness. the prowar/warrior sensibility of 300 gives us a forum to talk about how WE feel about war and those who fight it for us.

the only responsibility that a movie about actual historical events has it to be somewhat accurate in how it portrays them. i think the spartans attitude toward fighting was accurately portrayed. to pander to someone's idea of how they SHOULD have been would ruin the movie.

Yeah, the movie is about how the Spartans shafted the Persian Empire. It's historical fiction.

Nothing about the US in there? Well, there shouldn't be. That's about 3000 years to soon.

Example: South Park

WITH politics etc.: Hilarious
W/O: A bunch of Family Guy
Correction mine.


Now, off to my bunker....

if its done well, a movie SHOULD give you something to talk about afterwards.

a war movie that comes out when we are at war should resonate with our current situation. it doesnt have to pass any test of proper anti-warishness. the prowar/warrior sensibility of 300 gives us a forum to talk about how WE feel about war and those who fight it for us.

the only responsibility that a movie about actual historical events has it to be somewhat accurate in how it portrays them. i think the spartans attitude toward fighting was accurately portrayed. to pander to someone's idea of how they SHOULD have been would ruin the movie.

It should be through the 'lens' of the author, otherwise why not just read an historical account or watch a re-enactment?

Correction mine.


Now, off to my bunker....

lol

I get it.

"South Park: Cartoon Wars"

After reading a few arguments on whether or not "300" was "anti-war" or "homophobic" or "hatefully opposed to the development of oranges" or "whatever"...I must ask: Is entertainment becoming too political, or too symbolic?

I've been working on a creative-writing assignment for the past five weeks, and many sources I have read state that the first goal of storytelling is "telling a good story": theme, symbolism, morality plays, etc. come SECOND. And I agree. I am of the opinion that a storytellers first goal is to entertain the audience, NOT to preach.

And when such philosophical preachiness does not exist in a story, some pretentious fuckwits have to go and FIND or in some cases MAKE UP such things in the work.

Seriously...whatever happened to just going to the theatres or sitting down in an armchair to read a book, just for the sake of entertainment? Have we all become so anal retentive that we can't just listen to a good story without raising our hands and ask "isn't such language hateful?"

CONTEXT, my friends, CONTEXT.

So please, I ask you, and I ask those that you know who are like this, to please just relax and enjoy the show.

[/rant]

*dies*

because fanatics will find insult or confirmation in anything.

Lucky Charms (Cereal) can have people up in arms about the defamation of "Little People" or can be a rallying symbol of pagan beliefs.

Comic Books can be hailed as a medium to get people reading, or riled as a cause for the lack of children interested in science and math.

people will see what they want to see in anything.

Example: South Park

WITH politics etc.: Hilarious
W/O: A bunch of fart jokes

THIS I concede to.

It should be through the 'lens' of the author, otherwise why not just read an historical account or watch a re-enactment?

thats why i said somewhat. even the ancient greeks added to their stories over time to reflect the sensibilities of the time or the authors.

but what would the point be of making a movie about spartans who didnt act like spartans? as it is they had to give the spartans different clothing and hair styles because modern audiences just cant get into warrior men wearing dress and doing their hair before battle.

Example: South Park

WITH politics etc.: Hilarious
W/O: A bunch of fart jokes

Scott Tenormen must die didn't have any politics and that episode was hilarious.

because fanatics will find insult or confirmation in anything.

Lucky Charms (Cereal) can have people up in arms about the defamation of "Little People" or can be a rallying symbol of pagan beliefs.

Comic Books can be hailed as a medium to get people reading, or riled as a cause for the lack of children interested in science and math.

people will see what they want to see in anything.

But don't they realize that it doesn't make any sense? That it-

*Smacks self*

Bolol, Bolol, Bolol...You have to remember that sometimes people are stupid...

But don't they realize that it doesn't make any sense? That it-

*Smacks self*

Bolol, Bolol, Bolol...You have to remember that sometimes people are stupid...
I would argue that an inability to engage your world, its symbols and entertainment or understand the concept of reading material through different lenses is what is actually stupid.

I would argue that an inability to engage your world, its symbols and entertainment or understand the concept of reading material through different lenses is what is actually stupid.

Touche'. But even Freud said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And I gotta bail. Talk to everyone later.

Touche'. But even Freud said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And I gotta bail. Talk to everyone later.

cigar? :confused:

Oh. Those things. I know them by a different name; 'burning mouth turds'. Takes longer to say, but kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? :)

But don't they realize that it doesn't make any sense? That it-

*Smacks self*

Bolol, Bolol, Bolol...You have to remember that sometimes people are stupid...I never said anything about intelligence. I just said people will see what they want to see. ;)

cigar? :confused:

Oh. Those things. I know them by a different name; 'burning mouth turds'. Takes longer to say, but kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? :)

burning...

we call them Suicide Assistors. they're one of the few ways you can kill yourself at the legal speed limit. Take your life any faster and it becomes illegal.

Things don't have to be overtly or consciously political (although I distinctly prefer those who try to, because I prefer art to be art, and entertainment to be entertainment), but everything has at least some subconscious level of philosophical and political discussion in it. That isn't because the authors put it there, but it is because we write/draw/sing what we know, and our world is a naturally philocophical and political world.

That isn't to say that everyone wants to deal with those things in entertainment. I know many people who are sick enough of politics/philosophy in real life that they want to escape in them in entertainment. That's fine, but there are other people who seek to find the underneath the underneath. It's there, although it's rarely conscious.

Now, I'm more partial to the art than to the entertainment (hence why I tend to skip out on movies. They aren't all that entertaining anyway.), but it is unfair to accuse entertainers of having no message. Entertainment can seek to have no message, but it is almost always present in small pieces.

300 isn't Grapes of Wrath by any means, but that doesn't mean that the authors didn't end up leaving unintended messages in it. After all, you cannot talk about war without talking about it inside your frame of reference, and our current frame of refference is affected strongly by the Iraq war.

After reading a few arguments on whether or not "300" was "anti-war" or "homophobic" or "hatefully opposed to the development of oranges" or "whatever"...I must ask: Is entertainment becoming too political, or too symbolic?

I've been working on a creative-writing assignment for the past five weeks, and many sources I have read state that the first goal of storytelling is "telling a good story": theme, symbolism, morality plays, etc. come SECOND. And I agree. I am of the opinion that a storytellers first goal is to entertain the audience, NOT to preach.

And when such philosophical preachiness does not exist in a story, some pretentious fuckwits have to go and FIND or in some cases MAKE UP such things in the work.

Seriously...whatever happened to just going to the theatres or sitting down in an armchair to read a book, just for the sake of entertainment? Have we all become so anal retentive that we can't just listen to a good story without raising our hands and ask "isn't such language hateful?"

CONTEXT, my friends, CONTEXT.

So please, I ask you, and I ask those that you know who are like this, to please just relax and enjoy the show.

[/rant]

*dies*

Theres an intellectual war going on between all the subversives in America, all the gays, the hippies, the liberals, conservatives, cults ect. are working full pelt to win, this means winning people over with the most powerful propaganda machine in the US...the media. No wonder the majority of the US os going dumb, everyone's trying to tell them how to think and not everyone agrees, in fact they rarely do on many things.

Scott Tenormen must die didn't have any politics and that episode was hilarious.

That episode was based on a short story by the French writer Guy de Maupassant. It also contains elements of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. It deals with themes of revenge and justice, contrasted with amorality and sadism. While it had no politics, it very much did (or drew from) a well of heavy themes and was NOT simple entertainment.

It's easy enought to read anything into anything. If it's whacky enough, people will believe you.

Scott Tenormen must die didn't have any politics and that episode was hilarious.

But would the Cartoon Wars or "Gooback" episode work without politics?

Firstly, has anybody else heard of the "nouveau roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_roman)"? This might answer some questions regarding whether lierature exists solely to entertain; it both does, and doesn't, insofar as the absence opf any themes is a theme in itself.

Secondly, most literature, art and music is symbolic because it renders the work, and thus the creator, intelligent. Hence why bilge lie "Persuasion" is still studied, whereas the infinitely more fun "Harry Potter" isn't.:D

I think that science fiction is an excellent example of both sides of the debate. On one hand, science fiction is notorious for being symbolic, and often much more overtly than other genres. On the other hand, a lot of sci-fi has no metaphors, and is just good entertainment. Furthermore, both sides contain some of the greatest works of science fiction - Star Trek is a fine example of metaphors in sci-fi, while the Foundation novels by Isaac Asimov seem to be entirely devoid of symbolism.

What happens these days is that people read ideas into films that aren't there. Assuming a film is meant to be taken seriously (I am excluding most romantic comedies here), it is assumed to carry a deeper message. Most of the time, there is a message - you can't say that Letters from Iwo Jima isn't devoid of symbolism. But people create their own message to suit their political beliefs.

yeh, i don't see what is wrong with entertainment for entertainment's sake, particularly with films. which apparently makes me some sort of philistine to film buffs. apparently they are art. fucked if i can see that. they are there to entertain or to inform me, art is for appreciating and as far as i can make out you can't appreciate films as art without studying all the the tecniques that are employed to make them entertaining or informative. to me that negates the whole point of art.

i often find it annoying when i start to notice a political message in a film i've gone to see for entertainment. they are usually trite and and self-righteous and they just grate on my nerves. and the use of symbolism annoys me sometimes as well, particularly when in order to follow the story you have to have noticed all the referential bits of symbolism which are almost guaranteed to go over my head. if a film or book can't express its story without refering to obscure cultural symbolism outwith itself it is pretty worthless as a story in its own right imo.

Entertainment is only political or symbolic if you let it be. I completely ignore the socio-political import of Barbarella (http://imdb.com/title/tt0062711/) and instead revel in its T&A delights ;)

yeh, i don't see what is wrong with entertainment for entertainment's sake, particularly with films. which apparently makes me some sort of philistine to film buffs. apparently they are art. fucked if i can see that. they are there to entertain or to inform me, art is for appreciating and as far as i can make out you can't appreciate films as art without studying all the the tecniques that are employed to make them entertaining or informative. to me that negates the whole point of art.

So the script of a film can't be art? I assume that you also mean to intimate that books can't be art?

Moreover, you make the error of saying that art is something to be appreciated. This is not true. Art is expression. It can be something you appreciate, but it does not have to be.

Also, you disqualify camera techinques from being art because "You can't appreciate films as art without studdying... the techniques... make them." This, of course, ignores the fact that appreciating Stravinsky requires that you know enough about music to know why his work was so different. Understanding Picasso means studying enough to see the symbolism he interjects.

i often find it annoying when i start to notice a political message in a film i've gone to see for entertainment. they are usually trite and and self-righteous and they just grate on my nerves. and the use of symbolism annoys me sometimes as well, particularly when in order to follow the story you have to have noticed all the referential bits of symbolism which are almost guaranteed to go over my head. if a film or book can't express its story without refering to obscure cultural symbolism outwith itself it is pretty worthless as a story in its own right imo.

I suggest not going to see any movies that aren't bubble-headed bleach-blonde movies, then.


Entertainment is only political or symbolic if you let it be.

It isn't fair to a script-writer to ignore his message if he leaves it out in the open. It's completely fair to not go looking for the message (after all, if the author can't make his message accessible, that's his problem), but it isn't fair to ignore it if it is clearly presented.

It isn't fair to a script-writer to ignore his message if he leaves it out in the open. It's completely fair to not go looking for the message (after all, if the author can't make his message accessible, that's his problem), but it isn't fair to ignore it if it is clearly presented.

Why not? I paid my money, I can spend my time in the restroom and ignore the film if I so choose. Or make out in the balcony. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

300 is loosely based on historical events and a visually stunning film. I didn't notice anything political about it.

I want to see it again and when it comes out on video, I'm buying it and watching it obsessively.

Why not? I paid my money, I can spend my time in the restroom and ignore the film if I so choose. Or make out in the balcony. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Well. Assuming you bother to watch it at all, you should watch what is there, because the author put a lot of work into creating what's there.

I know how Bolol feels.

I wouldn't care so much, if I didn't have to write essays about the shit people pull out of their asses and call deeper meanings of a story. Sometimes, it's just a fucking story, ay?

but what would the point be of making a movie about spartans who didnt act like spartans? as it is they had to give the spartans different clothing and hair styles because modern audiences just cant get into warrior men wearing dress and doing their hair before battle.
They used to do their hair before battle?

Also, I kinda assumed that they didn't generally go into battle wearing nothing but metal underwear and capes, but what did they actually wear? I would assume some sort of armour would be good.

So the script of a film can't be art? I assume that you also mean to intimate that books can't be art?

Moreover, you make the error of saying that art is something to be appreciated. This is not true. Art is expression. It can be something you appreciate, but it does not have to be.

Also, you disqualify camera techinques from being art because "You can't appreciate films as art without studdying... the techniques... make them." This, of course, ignores the fact that appreciating Stravinsky requires that you know enough about music to know why his work was so different. Understanding Picasso means studying enough to see the symbolism he interjects.



I suggest not going to see any movies that aren't bubble-headed bleach-blonde movies, then.


i think art is a visual thing. art is art, literature is literature, music is music. although i recognise that most people will give it a far boader definition: google says it is the product of human creativity. that's too wish washy for me. i can appreciate the rite of spring because it it sounds good, it is a powerful and diverse and challenging ballet. i can appreciate guernica because it effectively conveys the nightmare of a bombing raid. i'll concede that some films can qualify as art (a popular example may be run, lola, run) but most films just do not qualify. some films can exhibit great artistry in their camera work but be so utterly devoid of any creativity in the rest that the film as a whole cannot be considered a piece of art. some films scripts can constitute great literature as a script and on others the score is a work of pure musical genius. but on the whole, with the possible exception of shorts, i do not believe that films constitute an art form in themselves. a director or producer or actor is not an artist they are a medium or a conduit for the art of camera operator or the animator or the lighting specialist, or for the literature of the script writer, or the music of the score composer.

i think art is a visual thing. art is art, literature is literature, music is music. although i recognise that most people will give it a far boader definition: google says it is the product of human creativity. that's too wish washy for me. i can appreciate the rite of spring because it it sounds good, it is a powerful and diverse and challenging ballet. i can appreciate guernica because it effectively conveys the nightmare of a bombing raid. i'll concede that some films can qualify as art (a popular example may be run, lola, run) but most films just do not qualify. some films can exhibit great artistry in their camera work but be so utterly devoid of any creativity in the rest that the film as a whole cannot be considered a piece of art. some films scripts can constitute great literature as a script and on others the score is a work of pure musical genius. but on the whole, with the possible exception of shorts, i do not believe that films constitute an art form in themselves. a director or producer or actor is not an artist they are a medium or a conduit for the art of camera operator or the animator or the lighting specialist, or for the literature of the script writer, or the music of the score composer.

I completely contest your definition of art. Art is a very, very broad category, since it can be anything that creatively expresses. To disqualify music or litterature as art means turning the writer and musician into entertainers that is the greatest insult that you can ever cast upon them. Bar none.

I would also point out that you can appreciate the way the camera angles bring out light and shadow, or bring out the shakyness of a scene, or evoke emotion without knowing the technical side of the issue.

I would never argue that an actor or director was an artist in the same sense that a scriptwriter is an artist (although interpreting the script is as important as writing it), since their roles are more mechanical than creative.

A whole book can certainly be a work of art. Would you say that the central concept of The Great Gatsby didn't qualify as art? If they can, then why can't a whole film be art?

I completely contest your definition of art. Art is a very, very broad category, since it can be anything that creatively expresses. To disqualify music or litterature as art means turning the writer and musician into entertainers that is the greatest insult that you can ever cast upon them. Bar none.

I would also point out that you can appreciate the way the camera angles bring out light and shadow, or bring out the shakyness of a scene, or evoke emotion without knowing the technical side of the issue.

I would never argue that an actor or director was an artist in the same sense that a scriptwriter is an artist (although interpreting the script is as important as writing it), since their roles are more mechanical than creative.

A whole book can certainly be a work of art. Would you say that the central concept of The Great Gatsby didn't qualify as art? If they can, then why can't a whole film be art?

why does something have to be art to bring it above the level of mere entertainment? surely a compelling and thought provoking book or a rousing and intricate piece of music can be appreciated in its own right without equating it to a painting or a sculpture which are totally different animals. i already said i agree that camerawork is artistry, that doesn't make the film itself art. i haven't read the great gatsby so i couldn't comment on it. the thing is, and this is where film-as-art becomes a problem for me, every painting and every sculpture can be called art no matter their quality, not every film can, in fact most films can't. it's the same with buildings. some buildings are works of considerable architectural genius (most of Charles Rennie Macisntosh's work for example), but you wouldn't call your average council house or restaurant a work of art, the same way that mean girls or die hard are not, or even relatively high-brow films like gosford park or even the godfather. these things have to be truly exceptional to be considered art imo, they have to be truly greater than the sum of their parts.

why does something have to art to bring it above the level of mere entertainment? surely a compelling and thought provoking book or a rousing and intricate piece of music can be appreciated in its own right without equating it to a painting or a sculpture which are totally different animals. i already said i agree that camerawork is artistry, that doesn't make the film itself art. i haven't read the great gatsby so i couldn't comment on it. the thing is, and this is where film-as-art becomes a problem for me, every painting and every sculpture can be called art no matter their quality, not every film can, in fact most films can't. it's the same with buildings. some buildings are works of considerable architectural genius (most of Charles Rennie Macisntosh's work for example), but you wouldn't call your average council house or restaurant a work of art, the same way that mean girls or die hard are not, or even relatively high-brow films like gosford park or even the godfather. these things have to be truly exceptional to be considered art imo, they have to be truly greater than the sum of their parts.


I think you are mistaking visual art for art. They are not the same.

All Visual Art is Art, not all Art is Visual Art.

I think you are mistaking visual art for art. They are not the same.

All Visual Art is Art, not all Art is Visual Art.

i think too many charlatans and pretentious wanks get away with calling themselves artists. i'm also in a contentious mood so i wouldn't take me too seriously if i were you. i've wound up most of my friends with this topic and they're pretty much all film buffs. they've still yet to fully persuade me that they're not all being pretentious when they laud the likes of tarantino and the rest as artists ;)

After reading a few arguments on whether or not "300" was "anti-war" or "homophobic" or "hatefully opposed to the development of oranges" or "whatever"...I must ask: Is entertainment becoming too political, or too symbolic?

I've been working on a creative-writing assignment for the past five weeks, and many sources I have read state that the first goal of storytelling is "telling a good story": theme, symbolism, morality plays, etc. come SECOND. And I agree. I am of the opinion that a storytellers first goal is to entertain the audience, NOT to preach.

And when such philosophical preachiness does not exist in a story, some pretentious fuckwits have to go and FIND or in some cases MAKE UP such things in the work.

Seriously...whatever happened to just going to the theatres or sitting down in an armchair to read a book, just for the sake of entertainment? Have we all become so anal retentive that we can't just listen to a good story without raising our hands and ask "isn't such language hateful?"

CONTEXT, my friends, CONTEXT.

So please, I ask you, and I ask those that you know who are like this, to please just relax and enjoy the show.

[/rant]

*dies*

And in later news, Harry Potter is about devil worship. ZOMG *goes to find bible, crosses, and burning stakes* KILL THE WITCHES!!!

But seriously, I agree. Whether intentionally on the part of the artist or not, practically everything in art and entertainment is being given some sort of socio-political spin. It's damn right frustrating.

This coming from an amateur writer, incidentally.

And in later news, Harry Potter is about devil worship. ZOMG *goes to find bible, crosses, and burning stakes* KILL THE WITCHES!!!

http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazo1MF9GX28xLmpwZ3xsb2FkPUwwLGh0dHA6Ly9pbWFnZXMuY2FmZXByZXNzLmNvb S9pbWFnZS80MjUyODAwXzQwMHg0MDAuanBnfHxzY2FsZT1MMCw0NDAsMjgwLFdoaXRlfGNvbXBvc2U9YmxhbmssTDAsQWRkLDIxL DEwMXxsb2FkPW1hc2ssYmxhbms6NTBfRl9tYXNrX28xLmpwZ3xjb21wb3NlPWJsYW5rLG1hc2ssTWFzaywwLDB8Y3A9cmVzdWx0L GJsYW5rfHNjYWxlPXJlc3VsdCwwLDQ4MCxXaGl0ZXxjb21wcmVzc2lvbj05NXw=

My understanding is that Landover Baptist is an elaborate, and highly amusing, hoax poking fun at the real Christian Right.

Correct.


In a related note: What are the policies on swearing in threads? Are we on a "Just keep it from being excessive" policy? Or should I avoid doing so in general?

We don't have a fucking policy on fucking swearing on these fucking fucking fucking forums. Seriously, the rule seems to be "go for it, just don't flame anyone."

http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazo1MF9GX28xLmpwZ3xsb2FkPUwwLGh0dHA6Ly9pbWFnZXMuY2FmZXByZXNzLmNvb S9pbWFnZS80MjUyODAwXzQwMHg0MDAuanBnfHxzY2FsZT1MMCw0NDAsMjgwLFdoaXRlfGNvbXBvc2U9YmxhbmssTDAsQWRkLDIxL DEwMXxsb2FkPW1hc2ssYmxhbms6NTBfRl9tYXNrX28xLmpwZ3xjb21wb3NlPWJsYW5rLG1hc2ssTWFzaywwLDB8Y3A9cmVzdWx0L GJsYW5rfHNjYWxlPXJlc3VsdCwwLDQ4MCxXaGl0ZXxjb21wcmVzc2lvbj05NXw=

My understanding is that Landover Baptist is an elaborate, and highly amusing, hoax poking fun at the real Christian Right.

That said, I fucking need one of those.

In a related note: What are the policies on swearing in threads? Are we on a "Just keep it from being excessive" policy? Or should I avoid doing so in general?

I think it's possible to have a good and meaningful story without injecting politics into it. War, torture, and the limits of human endurance for example.

When you write about death it always makes the stroy more interesting because death is one of the few great unknowns left to us, one of the few things that is both certain but cannot be explored.

I think it's possible to have a good and meaningful story without injecting politics into it. War, torture, and the limits of human endurance for example.

When you write about death it always makes the stroy more interesting because death is one of the few great unknowns left to us, one of the few things that is both certain but cannot be explored.

But I'm sure you could take any random story and point out "political" and "religious" elements to it, no matter how innocuous the work is.

I personally only can find entertainment entertaining if it does make an effort to either seek out meaning or simply exist as an exemplar of the talent required to effectively execute the medium. For instance, Buster Keaton's The General and Kubrick and company's Dr. Strangelove are both examples of the artistic medium of film comedy. The former is the pinnacle of the pure form. The latter succeeds on the strength of its deeper significance. Both are vastly superior to, say, any Adam Sandler movie, which is made with far less art than either of the aforementioned, in that it makes no effort to be anything more than lowest-common-denominator entertainment. The difference is that Keaton and Kubrick were both really good at what they did, understanding the nuances, timing, sophistication, and grace that goes into good comedy. Sandler doesn't. Therefore I appreciate Kubrick's and Keaton's works far more than I do Sandler's.

Naturally, film is a little harder to judge than other artistic forms, being such a collaborative effort. However, good tends to attract good, particularly if the director and producers have good discretion in entrusting other aspects of the production to competent hands, which they generally do if they are good at what they do. For example, Dr. Strangelove gets a lot of its strength from a strong cast, evocative cinematography, an effective score, good production design, and sharp editing.

My room mate and I have this debate all the time. He has much lower standards for entertainment than I do, and he repeatedly fails to understand why I don't find enjoyable a lot of the movies (dumb Hollywood comedies, etc.) that he likes. He also likes a lot of genuinely good, well-made movies, but he seems unable to distinguish between them. We've reached a kind of compromise where I simply don't watch a lot of the movies he does.

I know how Bolol feels.

I wouldn't care so much, if I didn't have to write essays about the shit people pull out of their asses and call deeper meanings of a story. Sometimes, it's just a fucking story, ay?

That's really all I was trying to say.

Symbolism, allusion and messages, when handled correctly, can add to a peice, as Kanabia pointed out.

But please, for the love of God, don't inject a pointless, and possibly incorrect, deeper meaning when there clearly isn't any.

I could write an essay on why abstract art pisses me off just as much...but I don't think that would be healthy.

PS: JuNii, "stupid" is a subjective term of mine. Stupid = "Oh god what are you talking about, it's just a fucking sponge".

I never said anything about intelligence. I just said people will see what they want to see. ;)



burning...

we call them Suicide Assistors. they're one of the few ways you can kill yourself at the legal speed limit. Take your life any faster and it becomes illegal.

I just call them burning mouth turds because they look and smell like roasting feces wedged between the lips of an otherwise oblivious dipshit. :)

We don't have a fucking policy on fucking swearing on these fucking fucking fucking forums. Seriously, the rule seems to be "go for it, just don't flame anyone."

So as long as I don't direct them at someone, or personally offend anyone, and merely use them in conversation (which is how I generally use them, as I apparently swear worse than some sailors) it's all good?

They used to do their hair before battle?

Also, I kinda assumed that they didn't generally go into battle wearing nothing but metal underwear and capes, but what did they actually wear? I would assume some sort of armour would be good.

Something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite#Equipment).