NationStates Jolt Archive

30s-70s were the glory years of film. I mean there were a few great films from the 80s, but great films were few and far between after the 70s.

A few?!?

The Verdict
Ghandi
Wall Street
Moonstruck
WarGames
Terms of Endearment
Chariots of Fire
Gallipoli
Amadeus
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Raging Bull
Platoon
Cinema Paradiso
Once Upon a Time in America
Blade Runner
Ran
Do the Right Thing
The Shining
Full Metal Jacket
Brazil
Airplane!
Das Boot
Tootsie
The Untouchables
The Terminator
Die Hard
The Last Emperor
Raising Arizona
The Princess Bride
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Scarface
A Christmas Story
Poltergeist
This Is Spinal Tap
Back to the Future
Rain Man
Ordinary People
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
When Harry Met Sally
Henry V (1989, Kenneth Branagh)
Blood Simple
The Right Stuff
The Color Purple
Kagemusha
The Little Mermaid
My Left Foot
Glory
The Killing Fields
A Passage to India
A Soldier's Story
Prizzi's Honor
A Fish Called Wanda
Witness
Driving Miss Daisy
The Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Broadcast News
The King of Comedy
Bull Durham
Hope and Glory
My Dinner with Andre
Hoosiers
The Breakfast Club
Big
Caddyshack
Arthur
Kiss of the Spider Woman
She's Gotta Have It
Body Heat
Local Hero
The Road Warrior
The Last Temptation of Christ
Fatal Attraction
Stand By Me
Lost in America
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Yeah, golly the 80's were pretty sparse alright. :rolleyes:

that is just wrong....

Dante would have surely reserved a special place in the Eighth Circle of Hell for such villainy.

that is just wrong....

well he is for doing that

i wonder what my sister going to say when i point it out to her

:eek:

It's true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHX3mAbyrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHX3mAbyrs)

skip to 2:45 in!!!!!

Oh, for fuck's sake.

A few?!?Yeah, golly the 80's were pretty sparse alright. :rolleyes:

We're using "great" differently if you're including Little Mermaid and the Road Warrior among the world's great films.

as if the fucking ewoks in that movie weren't bad enough...

makes no sense as well: why is Vader the only one being shown as a young man?

:eek:

It's true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHX3mAbyrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHX3mAbyrs)

skip to 2:45 in!!!!!
I prefer the alternate alternate ending - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f2b1D5w82yU&feature=related

Dante would have surely reserved a special place in the Eighth Circle of Hell for such villainy.

As if someone was going to watch "Episode Six" and feel somehow gypped because the ghost of Anakin was NOT as old as he was when he died -- JUST LIKE OBI-WAN, WHO IS STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO THE OTHER TWO, STILL BEING PLAYED BY ALEX-FUCKING-GUINNESS!!!

*facepalm*

I mean, why not just piss all over everything and replace Guinness with Ewan McGregor and be done with any sense of logic or loyalty? Did someone actually think that this little CG stunt was going to somehow boost SALES?!? And if that was the rationale, HOW GREEDY CAN YOU FUCKING GET?!?

as if the fucking ewoks in that movie weren't bad enough...

Ewoks aren't Jar-Jar Binks. Count your blessings.

Also, I'm pretty excited that World War Z is going to be made into a movie. I'm really hoping that they do it right and use a documentary style instead of just making it the same as all the other zombie flicks.

I'm just wondering how the film will be structured...it's going to be impossible to include all the little sub-plots and characters.

I just hope they leave in the Chinese sub. That was some pretty good shit right there.

I'd be excited for WWZ but it brings back flashbacks of the bad taste I Am Legend left in my mouth. It's like the first half of that movie was spot on, minus a couple parts here and there that weren't too big a deal, and then they said, "Fuck it, let's really just piss all over the rest of the story because we can and our stupid bullshit ending will be a really funny joke to play on people who know the story and how it completely wrecks the title to do what we're going to do."

Yeah...I Am Legend sucked, kind of like I Robot (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=i_robot).

Will Smith really fucking irritates me. Just leave sci-fi the hell alone, will ya? Go make Wild West 2 or something.

Speaking of recycling, I just learned that they are Planning to make 2-3 more terminator films starring Christian Bale and Terminator: Salvation isnt anywhere near being in the theatres yet.

Ugh...I hope Salvation bombs, so they stop greenlighting these kind of things before knowing if people even give a shit.

:eek:

It's true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHX3mAbyrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHX3mAbyrs)

skip to 2:45 in!!!!!

Not that I didn't know about this, but I have to throw this out here...

...if Anakin's "ghost" is younger than his body was at the time of his death, why in the hell isn't Obi-Wan's ghost younger?

A little consistency would be nice...but I forgot we were talking about Star Wars.

We're using "great" differently if you're including Little Mermaid and the Road Warrior among the world's great films.

Well, if we're counting influence and popularity, The Little Mermaid rescued Disney almost singlehandedly, and The Road Warrior popularized post-apocalyptic settings and Mel Gibson. (Only one of those two things should be praised.)

Ewoks aren't Jar-Jar Binks. Count your blessings.

No, but they are his sop-to-the-kids consumerist progenitors.

We're using "great" differently if you're including Little Mermaid and the Road Warrior among the world's great films.

Also, only two off that whole list? Seems my point is still valid.

Ewoks aren't Jar-Jar Binks. Count your blessings.

true. I was just thinking at least he didn't stick Jar Jar in amongst the Jedi ghosts.

true. I was just thinking at least he didn't stick Jar Jar in amongst the Jedi ghosts.

watch robot chicken

Not that I didn't know about this, but I have to throw this out here...

...if Anakin's "ghost" is younger than his body was at the time of his death, why in the hell isn't Obi-Wan's ghost younger?

A little consistency would be nice...but I forgot we were talking about George Lucas.

now that sound better

I'm not advocating Religion here, just pointing out something that was written well over 2000 years ago:

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

So basically they were complaining about the same thing millenia ago, albeit with a bit more of poetic flair.

Also, only two off that whole list? Seems my point is still valid.

Sure, if your point is that good movies were made in the 1980s. But most of those movies, while worth watching, are not cinematic masterpieces. I think your list highlights the rather lackluster nature of that period in American film.

I mean, why not just piss all over everything and replace Guinness with Ewan McGregor and be done with any sense of logic or loyalty? Did someone actually think that this little CG stunt was going to somehow boost SALES?!? And if that was the rationale, HOW GREEDY CAN YOU FUCKING GET?!?
I don't think it's greed so much as Lucas deciding the average viewer is a total moron unable to make such huge leaps in logic as to be able to conclude that the 3rd ghost must be Vader.
Just because we've just seen him die, be cremated and now see two deceased Jedi standing next to one another to be then joined by a 3rd who smiles to them and then to Luke must therefore be Luke's father is simply too big a hurdle to get our enfeebled minds around. The leap is far too great!
Why, I know myself that when I saw the movie the first time was left not thinking "what's with those fucking ewoks?!" but with, ""uhhhh...who dat old guy next to Obi wan and Yoda?". And I'm sure you were too.

Lucas, bless him, realised this and thus stuck Christiansen in (doing his inevitable, "if I glare out from under my fringe I look brooding and sexy' look) in to remove abovementioned confusion. what a guy.

Sure, if your point is that good movies were made in the 1980s. But most of those movies, while worth watching, are not cinematic masterpieces. I think your list highlights the rather lackluster nature of that period in American film.

Your opinion. Plenty of garbage was filmed in the so-called "golden age", too. I don't think you can single out any one decade as better or worse overall.

I don't think it's greed so much as Lucas deciding the average viewer is a total moron unable to make such huge leaps in logic as to be able to conclude that the 3rd ghost must be Vader.
Just because we've just seen him die, be cremated and now see two deceased Jedi standing next to one another to be then joined by a 3rd who smiles to them and then to Luke must therefore be Luke's father is simply too big a hurdle to get our enfeebled minds around. The leap is far too great!
Why, I know myself that when I saw the movie the first time was left not thinking "what's with those fucking ewoks?!" but with, ""uhhhh...who dat old guy next to Obi wan and Yoda?". And I'm sure you were too.

Lucas, bless him, realised this and thus stuck Christiansen in (doing his inevitable, "if I glare out from under my fringe I look brooding and sexy' look) in to remove abovementioned confusion. what a guy.

I'd buy that if we also were seeing Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan as well as the talentless douchebag (and by that, I mean Yoda.)

I'd buy that if we also were seeing Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan as well as the talentless douchebag (and by that, I mean Yoda.)
no cause we've already seen Obi Wan as an old man, which is why Lucas kept Alec Guiness in that shot.
But we never see Vader, hence our 'confusion' as to who that mysterious 3rd Jedi could be. That's why Lucas stuck in god-awful Christiasen there.

I'm not advocating Religion here, just pointing out something that was written well over 2000 years ago:

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

So basically they were complaining about the same thing millenia ago, albeit with a bit more of poetic flair.

As I said, I find this more apropos:

But those dark demons, shrouded by the bridge,
Cried "Here the hallow'd visage saves not: here
Is other swimming than in Serchio's wave.
Wherefore if thou desire we rend thee not,
Take heed thou mount not o'er the pitch." This said,
They grappled him with more than hundred hooks,
And shouted: "Cover'd thou must sport thee here;
So, if thou canst, in secret mayst thou filch."

E'en thus the cook bestirs him, with his grooms,
To thrust the flesh into the caldron down
With flesh-hooks, that it float not on the top.

(Canto XXIII)

That is the punishment reserved for the corrupt and those who needlessly ruin the original Star Wars movies.

Your opinion. Plenty of garbage was filmed in the so-called "golden age", too. I don't think you can single out any one decade as better or worse overall.

Of course it's my opinion. I'm the one saying it.

no cause we've already seen Obi Wan as an old man, which is why Lucas kept Alec Guiness in that shot.
But we never see Vader, hence our 'confusion' as to who that mysterious 3rd Jedi could be. That's why Lucas stuck in god-awful Christiasen there.

Uh...never? You mean not even five minutes ago when Luke helps him taker the mask off and there he is? This whole thing is depressing.

Of course it's my opinion. I'm the one saying it.

And the only one buying it. Plenty of good stuff and god-awful stuff in every decade.

The only rational explanation is that because Vader's spirit is at peace, he reverts to being Anakin Skywalker and thus appears as he did when he still bore that name.

Well, that or Lucas said to someone in his studio, "Wow, show me what else you can do with computers."

Uh...never? You mean not even five minutes ago when Luke helps him taker the mask off and there he is? This whole thing is depressing.

ahhh..but you're forgetting that not only are us viewers thick as two short planks, we also have memories of goldfish. We can't possibly expect to remember a scene from 5 whole minutes earlier!

ahhh..but you're forgetting that not only are us viewers thick as two short planks, we also have memories of goldfish. We can't possibly expect to remember a scene from 5 whole minutes earlier!

I guess you're ri-- hey! When did I turn the computer on?

And the only one buying it. Plenty of good stuff and god-awful stuff in every decade.Obviously there's always a range of quality, which I never disputed and is unrelated to my point. Art is influenced by the cultural zeitgeist, which in the 1980s was geared towards producing blockbusters like Indian Jones, et al., instead of truly masterful cinema. I like those blockbusters as much as the next person, but it's silly to lump them in the same category as The Godfather and Gone with the Wind.

Obviously there's always a range of quality, which I never disputed and is unrelated to my point. Art is influenced by the cultural zeitgeist, which in the 1980s was geared towards producing blockbusters like Indian Jones, et al., instead of truly masterful cinema. I like those blockbusters as much as the next person, but it's silly to lump them in the same category as The Godfather and Gone with the Wind.

Why? Those were emblematic of their time, too. You're not making any sense, unless your point is that older is automatically better, either on principle or on average. Is Gone With the Wind better than Tootsie? Sure. Most would agree. But The Little Mermaid is better than Darby O'Gill and the Little People, so it's kind of a wash.

Why? Those were emblematic of their time, too. You're not making any sense, unless your point is that older is automatically better, either on principle or on average. Is Gone With the Wind better than Tootsie? Sure. Most would agree. But The Little Mermaid is better than Darby O'Gill and the Little People, so it's kind of a wash.

No, I'm saying that some time periods produce better art than others. Surely you'd agree that the Renaissance produced more culture than the Dark Ages. The idea that one decade produced better movies than another is the same concept, on a much smaller scale. I haven't sat down and compared every movie made on points, but it's my holistic judgment that the 1980s was a rather commercial time period, and didn't produce as much worthwhile art as the preceding decades.

Of course it's my opinion, but I don't think I'm the only one to hold that opinion.

Film History of the 1980s: (http://www.filmsite.org/80sintro.html)Designed and packaged for mass audience appeal, few 80s films became what could be called 'classics'.

The era was characterized by the introduction of 'high-concept' films - with cinematic plots that could be easily characterized by one or two sentences (25 words or less) - and therefore easily marketable and understandable.

You're free to disagree, but I'm a bit chagrined that you called my position nonsensical.

At Christmas, Channel 3 will show two Star Wars movies. You could vote for which ones you wanted to see online. Their selection? fucking Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith!

If there's some hastily assembled drywall behind you, and a second-hand couch and two ferns, I'm out of here.

Stop trying to turn us into extras in your porn movie!
You wish you could be part of the NSG collaborative Porn effort. :p

hey, the make-up sex should sell it. especially if you write them as two angst ridden, rival movie critics. that should open some doors for Theatre sex as well.
Perhaps they should watch the people that hosted The Movie Show (old version, SBS), or At the Movies (new version, ABC).

"Thumbs"?
*Husky whispering* "Oh, why are my eyes closed?"
*Confident whispering* "We're going to play a little game"
"What game?"
*Pin the thumb in the movie critic. I give it... two thumbs up!"

Mmm... Squick...

No, I'm saying that some time periods produce better art than others. Surely you'd agree that the Renaissance produced more culture than the Dark Ages. The idea that one decade produced better movies than another is the same concept, on a much smaller scale. I haven't sat down and compared every movie made on points, but it's my holistic judgment that the 1980s was a rather commercial time period, and didn't produce as much worthwhile art as the preceding decades.

Of course it's my opinion, but I don't think I'm the only one to hold that opinion.

Film History of the 1980s: (http://www.filmsite.org/80sintro.html)
You're free to disagree, but I'm a bit chagrined that you called my position nonsensical.

It's nonsensical because A) who's making this assertion, and which era are they clearly a fan of, and B) the perception of art changes with time. What was once poignant or artistic later becomes trite or mawkish.

The Renaissance produced more visible art than the Medieval period. Also, more does not automatically mean better. Additionally, the reason the Renaissance had more visible art was less cultural and more practical. Life in the Dark Ages involved far more people living subsistence lives with little or no time for artistic pursuits. You've essentially said something akin to "there were better films in the 20th century than in the 19th." No kidding?

30s-70s were the glory years of film. I mean there were a few great films from the 80s, but great films were few and far between after the 70s. actually, as Special Effects improved... alot of films started skimping on story and padded their movies with Action and SFX. Take Jumper. a simple story with too much effects. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the "she" they kept mentioning was his mother.

I'm gonna need some kind of proof, or at least corroboration. Can anyone else here confirm this? Maybe it's on YouTube or something. I just have hard time believing that they'd swap out the old, just-gave-up-life-for-son Anakin for the whiny-ass new model. believe it. one of the reasons why I hated the directors re-release. and remember the fact that Qui-gon's ghost was the one teaching Obi wan and Yoda how to appear as spirits... so how the fuck did Anakin learn the technique?

I hated the remakes. the scene of Corescant celebrating the death of the Emperor really blew. I mean if the Empire could not hold the loyalty of their own home planet...

Why? Those were emblematic of their time, too. You're not making any sense, unless your point is that older is automatically better, either on principle or on average. Is Gone With the Wind better than Tootsie? Sure. Most would agree. But The Little Mermaid is better than Darby O'Gill and the Little People, so it's kind of a wash.

I dunno. I liked Darby O'Gill better than the Little Mermaid. :tongue:

the scene where you hear Sean Connery singing in his scottish brouge... classic!

actually, as Special Effects improved... alot of films started skimping on story and padded their movies with Action and SFX. Take Jumper. a simple story with too much effects. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the "she" they kept mentioning was his mother.I didn't.

Did they mention a 'she'?

I didn't.

Did they mention a 'she'?

yep. almost every time a paladin gets off the phone and then talks to Sam Jackson or another paladin.

things like
"She wants us to hit him now."
"she ordered us to..."
"Would you like to explain it to her?"

and other lines like that near the beginning.

yep. almost every time a paladin gets off the phone and then talks to Sam Jackson or another paladin.

things like
"She wants us to hit him now."
"she ordered us to..."
"Would you like to explain it to her?"

and other lines like that near the beginning.
Must have missed that.:$

30s-70s were the glory years of film. I mean there were a few great films from the 80s, but great films were few and far between after the 70s.

There have been loads and loads of great films since the 70s. Not many that have gone down as "classics" but I think that's immediacy as much as anything. Maybe it's true that you're less likely to see something wonderful at your local multiplex but that's a different thing. Over the past year did you go and see any of: Hunger, Gomorrah, A Christmas Tale, The Class, Of Time and the City, Happy-Go-Lucky, The Headless Woman, Let the Right One In?

Uh...never? You mean not even five minutes ago when Luke helps him taker the mask off and there he is? This whole thing is depressing.

That was Vader? Man, it is a confusing film.

It's nonsensical because A) who's making this assertion, and which era are they clearly a fan of, and B) the perception of art changes with time. What was once poignant or artistic later becomes trite or mawkish.
So basically you're saying that that it's nonsensical to make any value judgment about the worth of art. Don't you realize that such utter relativism falls victim to reduction to the absurd?

"It's nonsense to say that Scary Movie 3 isn't as good as The Godfather. In the future, the latter may become trite or mawkish and the former will be considered a classic."

The Renaissance produced more visible art than the Medieval period. Also, more does not automatically mean better.See, this is where that relativism takes you--trying to argue that the Dark Ages were just as culturally vivacious as the Renaissance.

Additionally, the reason the Renaissance had more visible art was less cultural and more practical. Life in the Dark Ages involved far more people living subsistence lives with little or no time for artistic pursuits. You've essentially said something akin to "there were better films in the 20th century than in the 19th." No kidding?

Nope. I'm comparing the relative cultural output of two time periods. Film is a new technology. Are you suggesting that art was a new technology that wasn't developed until the Renaissance? Because that's the logical conclusion of your analogy.

And you contradicted yourself. First you argue that you can't make judgments about what art is "good," and that just because the Dark Age art is relatively rare, doesn't mean it isn't "good." But then you say of course the Renaissance had better art, because people were wealthier. Are you the only one permitted to make value judgments about art?

You've also admitted that economic development can influence the quality of art. So the quality of art does change by time period--but only in accordance with wealth? Either something else influences the quality of cultural output, or quality of art should correlate directly to GDP.

actually, as Special Effects improved... alot of films started skimping on story and padded their movies with Action and SFX. Take Jumper. a simple story with too much effects. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the "she" they kept mentioning was his mother.Stop imposing your cultural values on the cinema. Just because you think story and character is more important than SFX doesn't mean you have the right to make nonsensical pronouncements about what is "good" or "bad.":rolleyes:

The Renaissance produced more visible art than the Medieval period. Also, more does not automatically mean better.
However, the art in the Renaissance was, in fact, considerably better, as well as being more plentiful.

I know this has already been cleared up, but had you remembered Hemingway's service as an ambulance corpsman in WWI...

By 'Hemingway', I assume we are talking about an author? If so - that's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject. :)

Stop imposing your cultural values on the cinema. Just because you think story and character is more important than SFX doesn't mean you have the right to make nonsensical pronouncements about what is "good" or "bad.":rolleyes:
did I say what was Good or Bad? no. I said storylines got simpler as SFX got better. that's neither "Bad" nor "Good". just an assessment on modern film making. :rolleyes:

However, the art in the Renaissance was, in fact, considerably better, as well as being more plentiful.
How is it better? Because it's more realistic? Prettier? What criteria are you using?

How is it better? Because it's more realistic? Prettier? What criteria are you using?Any criteria you like.

Any criteria you like.

How about age? :)

How about age? :)You were asking for a criterion of "better" vs. "worse": "more realistic" and "prettier" you cited as common criteria for what makes art "better"; level of technical execution is another, etc.

You were asking for a criterion of "better" vs. "worse": "more realistic" and "prettier" you cited as common criteria for what makes art "better"; level of technical execution is another, etc.
I was kidding about age. But even sticking with the criteria here I don't know if it works. Lots of pre-Renaissance art is prettier than Renaissance stuff. And even though I mentioned it, I'm not sure realism is a sign of quality. I can take a picture with a digital camera that looks way more realistic than anything Leonardo painted, but my snapshot is hardly better art.

I was kidding about age. But even sticking with the criteria here I don't know if it works. Lots of pre-Renaissance art is prettier than Renaissance stuff. And even though I mentioned it, I'm not sure realism is a sign of quality. I can take a picture with a digital camera that looks way more realistic than anything Leonardo painted, but my snapshot is hardly better art.

why not? there are alot of photographers that make a very good living off of their camera.

Good art is relative. Some like the new age stuff while others the Renaissance. Some like abstract works, others don't.

Believe it. one of the reasons why I hated the directors re-release. and remember the fact that Qui-gon's ghost was the one teaching Obi wan and Yoda how to appear as spirits... so how the fuck did Anakin learn the technique?

I hated the remakes. the scene of Corescant celebrating the death of the Emperor really blew. I mean if the Empire could not hold the loyalty of their own home planet...

Hadn't thought of that last part, and the first part, well I just plain forgot. I only saw the film twice. Once in anticipation, and again to ask "was that really as bad as I thought it was?"

So basically you're saying that that it's nonsensical to make any value judgment about the worth of art. Don't you realize that such utter relativism falls victim to reduction to the absurd?

Did I say that, or are you "logically extending" what I said to fit your own needs? What's nonsensical is to take an entire period, with it's differeng mores, techniques, technologies and cultural imperatives, and say that it is, whole cloth, better than another period. Renaissance art is not better than Medieval art because the two cannot be compared. They're not standing on the same ground. In fact, Renaissance art stands on Medieval art's shoulders, unless you believe that they just discovered paint and decided on realism in about 1500.

"It's nonsense to say that Scary Movie 3 isn't as good as The Godfather. In the future, the latter may become trite or mawkish and the former will be considered a classic."

Strawman.

See, this is where that relativism takes you--trying to argue that the Dark Ages were just as culturally vivacious as the Renaissance.

No, sir. That's where YOU took what you're deciding to call "relativism". Someone who prefers Medieval art is not going to be convinced that Renaissance art is better. In fact "better" is just about worthless as a term for comparing anything but artworks of similar periods.

Nope. I'm comparing the relative cultural output of two time periods. Film is a new technology. Are you suggesting that art was a new technology that wasn't developed until the Renaissance? Because that's the logical conclusion of your analogy.

Are you through imagining what I've said and re-casting it to your taste? Of course there were new technologies, techniques and sensibilities in an entirely new era. Are you saying there weren't? (See? I can do it too.)

And you contradicted yourself. First you argue that you can't make judgments about what art is "good," and that just because the Dark Age art is relatively rare, doesn't mean it isn't "good." But then you say of course the Renaissance had better art, because people were wealthier. Are you the only one permitted to make value judgments about art?

How is "the relative available time to spend on art and overall number of artisans were different in two periods" in ANY way mentioning wealth? Good grief, at least come CLOSE to what I typed. I never claimed Renaissance art was better. You did. Are you feeling okay?

More Renaissance art survived because there was more OF it. Does that make that art better than the previous period's? Of course not. Is Gregorian chant worse a Renaissance madrigal? No. They're entirely different choral idioms. You may prefer one to the other, but any objective assessment of their worth must fail on that point -- they were never meant to be compared. Compare Dunsatble and Dufay for effective musical expression if you like, but Dunstable and Monteverdi? Ludicrous. I'd make a comparison with visual artists, but that's not my field. Music is.

You've also admitted that economic development can influence the quality of art. So the quality of art does change by time period--but only in accordance with wealth? Either something else influences the quality of cultural output, or quality of art should correlate directly to GDP.

Can. CAN. Does that mean "MUST" where you live? More money CAN produce higher quality or more intricate craftsmanship, but that's not all art is. Yes, wealth can afford more people more time, and the law of averages says that there will likely be more "masters" of cultural phenomena with more time to devote to honing craft, learning from the past and trying new things. Does that mean that it's an ironclad rule? No, it sure doesn't. Otherwise the US and Japan would be artistic centers of the globe -- some say they are, but that gets into preference again.

Stop imposing your cultural values on the cinema. Just because you think story and character is more important than SFX doesn't mean you have the right to make nonsensical pronouncements about what is "good" or "bad.":rolleyes:

And what are you doing? The same thing. Just because you prefer Caravaggio to Cimabue (came up with some names after all) doesn't mean you have the right to make prounouncements about what is "good" or "bad", either.

And what are you doing? The same thing. Just because you prefer Caravaggio to Cimabue (came up with some names after all) doesn't mean you have the right to make prounouncements about what is "good" or "bad", either.
I was being sarcastic. Just because art is open to subjective interpretation doesn't mean we have to withhold judgment, or that any opinion about it inherently "nonsense." Jumper was a bad movie.

It's my opinion that the 1980s produced relatively fewer masterful pieces of cinema than the preceding decades. Just as it's my opinion that the Middle Ages produced relatively fewer masterful pieces of art than the Renaissance. I don't care if you have a different opinion, but I find it rather odd that you attack the very idea of having an opinion about such things.

I think the New Republic reviewer got it right:

On the plus side, Reeves is relatively well cast as an affectless alien. One can only hope that in the future he will devote himself to playing androids, less-self-aware species of undead, stylish pieces of contemporary furniture, and other roles that do not require the exhibition of any recognizably human traits.

In reference to the art argument:

There is no such thing as progress in art. The works of art of one age are not "better" than the works of art of another age in any aesthetic sense.

However, what sets the Renaissance apart from the "Dark Ages" and makes it legitimately recognized as a high point of cultural growth was the shift of European culture away from the repressive and controlling power structure of the Middle Ages which had the effect of controlling very directly what kinds of artistic styles and studies artists were allowed to pursue.

It is no accident that both the arts and the sciences saw dramatic expansions of practice at the same time during the Renaissance. During the Middle Ages, the church severely restricted the study of the natural world in ways not reflected in scripture. Optics and perspective study, comparative anatomy, the study of flight and certain other elements of physics, all had been restricted before the time of the Renaissance. Also, during the Middle Ages, naturalism in the arts was actively discouraged in favor of using distortions of compostion and proportion to present figures in ways that reflected their social, political, or scriptural place or importance.

The popes and rulers of the Renaissance changed those rules and lifted many of those older restrictions. The result of this was the blossoming of scientific study and the arts that we saw.

The reason the Renaissance's emphasis on realism in the arts (a rebirth of the earlier Roman style) is now referred to as an advancement is not because realism is somehow "better" or more "advanced" than more stylized art, but rather because it represents a freeing of the arts from the prior restrictions that, today, are considered to have stultified not just artistic expression but intellectual growth in Europe.

Now, personally, I am not entirely certain that the Middle Ages were all that stultified intellectually. They had their points of interest and advanced quite well in those areas, particulary mining, engineering, wind-driven machinery and armory, as well as politics and economics. Considering how much information Europe lost when Rome finally collapsed, I think the Middle Ages did not so bad. But as far as the arts and education go, they were indeed pretty dark, and the Renaissance was definitely an intellectual "rebirth."

But that doesn't mean that, say, Caravaggio is a better artist than, say, Bosche. They are just different. Both brilliant, but different from each other.

EDIT: Having said all that, to bring us back to the topic, I'd like to add that Christian Bale couldn't act his way out of a paperbag. Plus he's unattractive. :p

I think the New Republic reviewer got it right:
Oooh, ouch. It's true, but it hurts. :D

I was being sarcastic. Just because art is open to subjective interpretation doesn't mean we have to withhold judgment, or that any opinion about it inherently "nonsense." Jumper was a bad movie.

It's my opinion that the 1980s produced relatively fewer masterful pieces of cinema than the preceding decades. Just as it's my opinion that the Middle Ages produced relatively fewer masterful pieces of art than the Renaissance. I don't care if you have a different opinion, but I find it rather odd that you attack the very idea of having an opinion about such things.

I find it odd that you consider what I'm doing attacking. Jumper is shit compared to most movies of its era. However, how does it compare to a similar mass-appeal attempt from 50 years ago? Say, I Was a Teenage Werewolf? Can that comparison even be made, given the gulf in technology of the two eras?

How was "plenty of garbage made in every decade" an attack, by the way?

In reference to the art argument:

There is no such thing as progress in art. The works of art of one age are not "better" than the works of art of another age in any aesthetic sense.

However, what sets the Renaissance apart from the "Dark Ages" and makes it legitimately recognized as a high point of cultural growth was the shift of European culture away from the repressive and controlling power structure of the Middle Ages which had the effect of controlling very directly what kinds of artistic styles and studies artists were allowed to pursue.

It is no accident that both the arts and the sciences saw dramatic expansions of practice at the same time during the Renaissance. During the Middle Ages, the church severely restricted the study of the natural world in ways not reflected in scripture. Optics and perspective study, comparative anatomy, the study of flight and certain other elements of physics, all had been restricted before the time of the Renaissance. Also, during the Middle Ages, naturalism in the arts was actively discouraged in favor of using distortions of compostion and proportion to present figures in ways that reflected their social, political, or scriptural place or importance.

The popes and rulers of the Renaissance changed those rules and lifted many of those older restrictions. The result of this was the blossoming of scientific study and the arts that we saw.

The reason the Renaissance's emphasis on realism in the arts (a rebirth of the earlier Roman style) is now referred to as an advancement is not because realism is somehow "better" or more "advanced" than more stylized art, but rather because it represents a freeing of the arts from the prior restrictions that, today, are considered to have stultified not just artistic expression but intellectual growth in Europe.

Now, personally, I am not entirely certain that the Middle Ages were all that stultified intellectually. They had their points of interest and advanced quite well in those areas, particulary mining, engineering, wind-driven machinery and armory, as well as politics and economics. Considering how much information Europe lost when Rome finally collapsed, I think the Middle Ages did not so bad. But as far as the arts and education go, they were indeed pretty dark, and the Renaissance was definitely an intellectual "rebirth."

But that doesn't mean that, say, Caravaggio is a better artist than, say, Bosche. They are just different. Both brilliant, but different from each other.

EDIT: Having said all that, to bring us back to the topic, I'd like to add that Christian Bale couldn't act his way out of a paperbag. Plus he's unattractive. :p

Thank you for articulating what I was singularly failing to articulate.

*bows in supplication*

Thank you for articulating what I was singularly failing to articulate.

*bows in supplication*
There's a smilie for that, you know. ;)

In reference to the art argument:

There is no such thing as progress in art. The works of art of one age are not "better" than the works of art of another age in any aesthetic sense.There's no such thing as linear progress, but there are periods of renewed creativity and innovation. Plus, films are not only art but also entertainment products for consumption. All I've been trying to say is that the 1980s American cinema generally eschewed creative innovation for formulaic commercialism. I've very sorry for turning it into an argument about the nature of art involving the Renaissance.

Thank you for articulating what I was singularly failing to articulate.

*bows in supplication*
And as a serious response, I don't think the question is whether one decade produced more crap or crappier crap than another decade, but rather, whether both decades produced work that was good. And that opens up the can of worms of what constitutes "good" in the arts -- whether painting/sculpture or movies.

Just as the 1930s produced, possibly, just as much crap as the 1980s did, the question becomes did both decades produce good movies? And that begs the question, what makes a movie good?

In reference to art, the Renaissance gave us da Vinci, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, etc. but the Middle Ages gave us Bosche and El Greco and a bunch of other masters whose names escape me at the moment and others whose names are unknown because they didn't sign their work. When you walk through a museum showing works from all of them I would challenge anyone to say those medieval masters were not as good artists as the later ones. They were equally masters of their craft as well as intellectually brilliant.

Likewise, rather than compare bad moviemakers, when we compare good moviemakers of the 20th century, I think we'd have an equally hard time arguing that, say, a Victor Fleming who directed "Gone With the Wind" is not as good a director as a Stanley Kubrick. They are both masters of their medium, but different from each other.

And then there are always the multiple-era-spanners like Hitchcock, who started in silents and continued up to the 80s. Hard to make a "one period's art is better than another" kind of argument with him around.

There's no such thing as linear progress,
That's what I meant.

but there are periods of renewed creativity and innovation.
No kidding, really? :p

Plus, films are not only art but also entertainment products for consumption.
All art is an entertainment product for consumption. College professors and pretentious jackasses who tell you otherwise are lying.

All I've been trying to say is that the 1980s American cinema generally eschewed creative innovation for formulaic commercialism. I've very sorry for turning it into an argument about the nature of art involving the Renaissance.
I actually get your point. I think you might be being a little unfair to the 80s, because that decade also saw a "period of renewed creativity and innovation" in independent studios and other countries. The 1980s were a great period for Americans to see foreign films that, I think, actually did expand the American audience's views and expectations.

I also personally tend to blame the 1990s more than the 80s for bland commercial formula exploitation at the expense of creativity. That was the decade that ushered in the morass we are currently in where hardly any movies have original content anymore and where people like Keanu Reeves get to put down "Actor" as their occupation on their tax returns, which is just insane to me.

As crass and plastic as the 80s were, I often say that it was the last time we saw anything really new in modern culture, and when I say that I'm thinking about movies, television, books, and music.

I find it odd that you consider what I'm doing attacking. Jumper is shit compared to most movies of its era. However, how does it compare to a similar mass-appeal attempt from 50 years ago? Say, I Was a Teenage Werewolf? Can that comparison even be made, given the gulf in technology of the two eras?

How was "plenty of garbage made in every decade" an attack, by the way?

I got the impression you said that you can't make judgments about the quality of movies, since you said things about times changing, etc. Comparing movies, or a few years' worth of movies, is not the same thing as comparing surrealist art to impressionist art.

All art is an entertainment product for consumption. College professors and pretentious jackasses who tell you otherwise are lying.Of course, but commercial value isn't the same as artistic value. Different artistic styles may all be equally valid, but trying to maximize box office success with market-tested formulas isn't really an artistic style.

I actually get your point. I think you might be being a little unfair to the 80s, because that decade also saw a "period of renewed creativity and innovation" in independent studios and other countries. The 1980s were a great period for Americans to see foreign films that, I think, actually did expand the American audience's views and expectations.Right. I was talking about Hollywood.

I also personally tend to blame the 1990s more than the 80s for bland commercial formula exploitation at the expense of creativity. That was the decade that ushered in the morass we are currently in where hardly any movies have original content anymore and where people like Keanu Reeves get to put down "Actor" as their occupation on their tax returns, which is just insane to me.I think you're probably right about that. I kept referring to the 80s because that was the way someone else framed it, by referring to the preceding decades as the Golden Age of American cinema.

We're using "great" differently if you're including Little Mermaid and the Road Warrior among the world's great films.

LOL hence why I did not respond to that post...:tongue:
Oh, for fuck's sake.

The ultimate turd was shat upon the Star Wars franchise right there.


I prefer the alternate alternate ending - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f2b1D5w82yU&feature=related



as if the fucking ewoks in that movie weren't bad enough...

makes no sense as well: why is Vader the only one being shown as a young man?

Not that I didn't know about this, but I have to throw this out here...

...if Anakin's "ghost" is younger than his body was at the time of his death, why in the hell isn't Obi-Wan's ghost younger?

A little consistency would be nice...but I forgot we were talking about Star Wars.

And at that rate you might as well swap out Yoda for the CGI yoda doing backflips with a lightsaber. Fucking Bullshit through and through.

Of course, but commercial value isn't the same as artistic value. Different artistic styles may all be equally valid, but trying to maximize box office success with market-tested formulas isn't really an artistic style.
Right. I was talking about Hollywood.
I think you're probably right about that. I kept referring to the 80s because that was the way someone else framed it, by referring to the preceding decades as the Golden Age of American cinema.

"Someone else." Me. And I didn't invent the "golden age of American cinema", film critics did. What a load of rubbish most of them are, by the way. Also, you kept referring to the 80s because that was where you decided to draw the line. I called you on it, that's all. I did no framing, you did.

LOL hence why I did not respond to that post...:tongue:

Why, because you realize that "greatness" is a meaningless term unless you define by which parameters we're assessing greatness? As I said, name three post-apocalyptic movies that were half as well received as The Road Warrior prior to its release (and no, Mad Max doesn't count). Many came after it. It didn't invent the genre (likely Planet of the Apes, and even that's a stretch).

And The Little Mermaid, like it or not, singlehandedly revitalized American animation. 1989. After that, Disney goes on its run and helps spawn the Pixar juggernaut, The Simpsons arrive shortly thereafter as well. Sometimes a film can be assessed on more than whether or not you personally liked it. After all, if you took away the innovations in movies that featured them for the first time, you might not have such amazing films (Citizen Kane, for example).

My list was of great films of the 80s. Only some of those are exemplary in many categories -- just like any decade. If you don't like westerns, for example, you're not likely to think Rio Bravo, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, High Noon, Silverado or Unforgiven are great films. Yet many think they are. Similarly, if you're not up on the politics or cultural references of older films, you're not likely to think they're great, either.

As a musician, I'm not fond of the fact that most of my students don't care for the Beatles, but I have to live with it and do my best to sneak them in whenever I can. Same thing with the kid who can't grasp why I think The Philadelphia Story is a great film.

The ultimate turd was shat upon the Star Wars franchise right there.

And at that rate you might as well swap out Yoda for the CGI yoda doing backflips with a lightsaber. Fucking Bullshit through and through.

Agreed.

Agreed.
"...and then I threw the fucking Senate at him!"

As a musician, I'm not fond of the fact that most of my students don't care for the Beatles, but I have to live with it and do my best to sneak them in whenever I can.

Off topic - in another thread we were discussing music (well arguing about music) and neuroscience. Have you read This is your brain on music by Daniel Levitin?

Off topic - in another thread we were discussing music (well arguing about music) and neuroscience. Have you read This is your brain on music by Daniel Levitin?

I have been told to -- it's on the list, believe me.

"...and then I threw the fucking Senate at him!"

"What the *bleep* is an Aluminum Falcon?"

I got sick... =(
So the response is untimely.
Meh, I think the storyline was great, plus Kane was an awesome villain.Have you played C&C 3 yet? Utter waste of acting potential. The plot in the game is ok, but the dialog is so crappy that willing suspension of disbelief doesn't work. Boyle is way too much of a charicature, and pretty much the only person that is believable is Ironside's character Granger. Jennifer Morrison's uniform being unbuttoned as low as tastefully possible doesn't particularly help either.
Course, it gets worse in the expansion. That plot was crap, and the dialog crappier.

20 years ago, I went to the cinema every week, sometimes twice a week. Now, it's one time a year.

Why? The price tripled and the quality of the movies tripled down.

It seems that most movies, present times, are created for 13-15 years old boys, who expect lots of FX and no story.

As a musician, I'm not fond of the fact that most of my students don't care for the Beatles, but I have to live with it and do my best to sneak them in whenever I can. Same thing with the kid who can't grasp why I think The Philadelphia Story is a great film.


It's just a shame that kids dont care for music like the Beatles, especially since music today is nothing but a commercial machine pumping out trendy hits to teens.

It's just a shame that kids dont care for music like the Beatles, especially since music today is nothing but a commercial machine pumping out trendy hits to teens.

Most of the stuff I lsten is from the 50s-90s. Nowadays, almost all music is shit. Right now, I'm listening Hendrix.

Most of the stuff I lsten is from the 50s-90s. Nowadays, almost all music is shit. Right now, I'm listening Hendrix.

I am listening to Cream.

I am listening to Cream.

Cream? I think I've heard of them.. Not sure.

Cream? I think I've heard of them.. Not sure.

I'm very suprised to hear a hendrix fan not knowing who cream is.

Cream? I think I've heard of them.. Not sure.

You dig Hendrix but not Eric Clapton (Cream's lead guitarist)? Is that even possible? Expand your horizons, young lad!

You dig Hendrix but not Eric Clapton (Cream's lead guitarist)? Is that even possible? Expand your horizons, young lad!

I didn't think that was possible until just now. NSG never ceases to amaze me.

You dig Hendrix but not Eric Clapton (Cream's lead guitarist)? Is that even possible? Expand your horizons, young lad!

I didn't think that was possible until just now. NSG never ceases to amaze me.

Alright, I listened some of it and liked it. Happy now?

now I just read that rob zombie is making (if not remaking) halloween 2.

too many sequels....

It's just a shame that kids dont care for music like the Beatles, especially since music today is nothing but a commercial machine pumping out trendy hits to teens.

I find this nonsense silly. There is a lot of good music out there...there is a ton of just music in general out there now, a lot of it crap, a lot of it good and some of it absolutely fantastic. Your local KISS radio station does not constitute the entirety of the modern universe of music.

Alright, I listened some of it and liked it. Happy now?

Sorry, it's just that Cream is, along with Hendrix and a few other acts, part of the same musical ethos from that period. It'd be like loving either Haydn or Mozart without having ever heard of the other.

It's just a shame that kids dont care for music like the Beatles, especially since music today is nothing but a commercial machine pumping out trendy hits to teens.

This is so not true. Take off your rose-colored glasses and realize that there was tons and tons of shitty commercial pop in the 50s and 60s just like there is today. We just don't remember it for the same reason we won't remember shitty commercial pop from today in 25 years. There is plenty of great music out there that you're just not exposing yourself to.

This is so not true. Take off your rose-colored glasses and realize that there was tons and tons of shitty commercial pop in the 50s and 60s just like there is today. We just don't remember it for the same reason we won't remember shitty commercial pop from today in 25 years. There is plenty of great music out there that you're just not exposing yourself to.

Agreed.

For every Buddy Holly, there were a dozen Buddy Knoxes ("Party Doll").

For every Beatles, there were a dozen Fifth Dimensions ("Up, Up and Away (in My Beautiful Balloon)").

Agreed.

For every Buddy Holly, there were a dozen Buddy Knoxes ("Party Doll").

For every Beatles, there were a dozen Fifth Dimensions ("Up, Up and Away (in My Beautiful Balloon)").

where are the beatles of today though. all i am see and hearing anymore is fifth dimensions.

I would love to get into some new music, i just have found any that is good.

I'm very suprised to hear a hendrix fan not knowing who cream is.
I've heard of Cream. I just think they're dull and uninteresting. Jimi on the other hand was a God.

Speaking of Buddy Holly, I spent most of yesterday at work listening to him on jango radio. Suddenly felt the need for a bit of the old Bud. I love his voice, it's so distinctive (likewise his guitar playing).

:( Peter Jackson's remake of the Dambusters...

I already want to beat him for thinking of remaking the film, never mind the violence i will want to inflict upon him once he does release his complete fuck up of a true story... :mad:

:( Peter Jackson's remake of the Dambusters...

I already want to beat him for thinking of remaking the film, never mind the violence i will want to inflict upon him once he does release his complete fuck up of a true story... :mad:
so he hasn't actually made the movie yet, but you've decided it's a 'complete fuck-up'?
Preconceive your opinions much, do you?

If you already think it's going to be that bad, then there's no point you going to it (unless you get your jollies from wasting time and money on an experience you've already decided will be unenjoyable). No matter what Jackson does, you'll find fault.

Out of all the directors out there at present, I think Jackson is the only one capable of doing justice to the Dambusters. He's a total nerd about planes, especially WWII ones. Also of positive note is that Stephen Fry is co-writing the script.


Thank your lucky stars that Mel Gibson didn't make it. He had the rights and was considering not only directing but starring in it!

so he hasn't actually made the movie yet, but you've decided it's a 'complete fuck-up'?
Preconceive your opinions much, do you?

If you already think it's going to be that bad, then there's no point you going to it (unless you get your jollies from wasting time and money on an experience you've already decided will be unenjoyable). No matter what Jackson does, you'll find fault.

Out of all the directors out there at present, I think Jackson is the only one capable of doing justice to the Dambusters. He's a total nerd about planes, especially WWII ones. Also of positive note is that Stephen Fry is co-writing the script.


Thank your lucky stars that Mel Gibson didn't make it. He had the rights and was considering not only directing but starring in it!

Mel Gibson would have killed WWII like he killed jesus.:tongue:

Mel Gibson would have killed WWII like he killed jesus.:tongue:
He'd have probably made the nazis Jews!

He'd have probably made the nazis Jews!

and the Jews would have been Jews as well, so he would then have a film depicting jews initiating the holocaust.

:eek:

I think peter jackson just stopped Mel Gibson from making the most offensive film ever.

I don't rant often but heres a small one...

I just got back a couple of hours ago from seeing the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. It is by far the worst sci-fi classic remake to date (well at least out of the blockbuster films). All big budget effects going to waste over shitty dialogue and horribly wooden acting. Keanu Reeves was the best actor in the movie! (I never thought I would say that in my life).I want my money and the 2 hours of my life back. In fact out of all the films I have seen recently I want my money back (Twilight, Day The Earth Stood Still, Australia [my wife dragged me to that 3 hour garbage], Prince Caspian...just to name a few).

I have also looked at a preview of some of next summers films and they look disappointing (land of the lost, The A-Team, Transformers 2, Fast and Furious 4). What the hell has happened to hollywood? Is it a shitty year of films because of the writers strike? If you guys know something I dont please tell me I am all ears.

And if any of you experienced some shitty movies lately share them with me so I don't feel alone in this.

hey i sat through the garbage known as Jumper some months back, should earn me some sympathy methinks :P

and hey, Watchmen is coming out in March i believe surely that is a film that has some potential?

and hey, Watchmen is coming out in March i believe surely that is a film that has some potential?

Angry Diatribe From Alan Moore About How The Movie Is A Travesty Of His Classic Work Included.

Mel Gibson would have killed WWII like he killed jesus.:tongue:

I really wish he'd have just made about 15 more Mad Max movies instead of doing whatever else he did. Don't get me wrong, Braveheart was a lot of fun, but...I really just want more Mad Max movies. Yeah, that's all I've got.

Angry Diatribe From Alan Moore About How The Movie Is A Travesty Of His Classic Work Included.
That's the bit I'm most looking forward to!

I have great reservations about it, after reading what they've done to Nightowl. They've made him into a Batman-type, complete with muscles and tight latex costume. way to go to totally ignore everything about the character.

That's the bit I'm most looking forward to!

I have great reservations about it, after reading what they've done to Nightowl. They've made him into a Batman-type, complete with muscles and tight latex costume. way to go to totally ignore everything about the character.

Are you sure that that isn't just for the flashback scenes? Nightowl in his prime would have fit that characterization fine.

Are you sure that that isn't just for the flashback scenes? Nightowl in his prime would have fit that characterization fine.

the original Nightowl maybe? i don't recall him being drawn in the graphic novel.

i was under the impression that they followed the work well, i suppose i shouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be innacurate :(

I really wish he'd have just made about 15 more Mad Max movies instead of doing whatever else he did. Don't get me wrong, Braveheart was a lot of fun, but...I really just want more Mad Max movies. Yeah, that's all I've got.

He was supposed to be doing a new one. But that rumor came out around the time when they were just talking about making the new die hard and indiana jones films.

Are you sure that that isn't just for the flashback scenes? Nightowl in his prime would have fit that characterization fine.
good point. I certainly hope so. After the initial reports of the movie that had the them defeating Ozymandias I've been very relunctant to get excited about the Watchmen movie.
Plus the fact I can't see how it can be done well in movie-format. Almost every issue is stand alone, detailing seperate events that eventually culminate. Only a 13 part miniseries (1 for each issue + 2 for the final issue) could really show this. A movie, especially mainstream, has to be linear. Making the Watchmen linear (and just 90 minutes) would mean, by necessity, ignoring huge tracts of the comic. And it's those bits which make it so damn great. Take those away and it's little more than your usual superhero comic plot.
gods, I hope I'm wrong!

where are the beatles of today though. all i am see and hearing anymore is fifth dimensions.

I would love to get into some new music, i just have found any that is good.

Well part of the problem is that the genres have been so fractured through marketing and online sources that I'm not sure we can ever truly rally behind one group anymore. I'd vote for Radiohead or XTC, but I'd get fifty posts to follow telling me that I'd lost my mind or in other ways castigating me for suggesting a modern Beatles that wasn't their favorite group. I fear we're past the age of even national hit-makers with more than a fraction of the total available audience, let alone an act that captures the zeitgeist.

good point. I certainly hope so. After the initial reports of the movie that had the them defeating Ozymandias I've been very relunctant to get excited about the Watchmen movie.
Plus the fact I can't see how it can be done well in movie-format. Almost every issue is stand alone, detailing seperate events that eventually culminate. Only a 13 part miniseries (1 for each issue + 2 for the final issue) could really show this. A movie, especially mainstream, has to be linear. Making the Watchmen linear (and just 90 minutes) would mean, by necessity, ignoring huge tracts of the comic. And it's those bits which make it so damn great. Take those away and it's little more than your usual superhero comic plot.
gods, I hope I'm wrong!

Who've they got in the main roles? Feh, I should look it up.



Jeffrey Dean Morgan ... Edward Blake / The Comedian

Carla Gugino ... Sally Jupiter / Silk Spectre

Malin Akerman ... Laurie Juspeczyk / Silk Spectre II

Patrick Wilson ... Dan Dreiberg / Nite Owl II

Billy Crudup ... Jon Osterman / Dr. Manhattan

Jackie Earle Haley ... Walter Kovacs / Rorschach

Matthew Goode ... Adrian Veidt / Ozymandias

Stephen McHattie ... Hollis Mason / Nite Owl

Matt Frewer ... Edgar Jacobi / Moloch the Mystic

Glad they went with relative unknowns/non-superstars.

Love the idea of Frewer as Moloch.

hows this for an upcoming release...
X-Men Origins (http://www.myspace.com/x-menorigins)

the Ragin Cajin's apparently going to be in it.

Well part of the problem is that the genres have been so fractured through marketing and online sources that I'm not sure we can ever truly rally behind one group anymore. I'd vote for Radiohead or XTC, but I'd get fifty posts to follow telling me that I'd lost my mind or in other ways castigating me for suggesting a modern Beatles that wasn't their favorite group. I fear we're past the age of even national hit-makers with more than a fraction of the total available audience, let alone an act that captures the zeitgeist.


Actually I agree with you. If there is one band out there right now that still is orignial, and worth following their every album; that band is Radiohead. There really hasn't been a single album of theirs that I did not like, and I haven't listened to In Rainbows yet, but I hear nothing but good things about it. Just the other day I watched this live set they did on the Independent Film Channel called "From The Basement" (I think). And it was just them jamming out with maybe 5 other people in the room (roadies most likely) just watching these guys play their fucking hearts out. After seeing that set, I have a whole new respect for Radiohead.

(it may be online at www.fromthebasement.tv was their website i believe.)

or check and see if its on youtube or whatever.

hows this for an upcoming release...
X-Men Origins (http://www.myspace.com/x-menorigins)

the Ragin Cajin's apparently going to be in it.

I have never heard of the actor who is playing him...Taylor Kitsch (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2018237/).

He better not suck, Gambit was always one of my favorite X-Men.

glad they're keeping some of his Comic History with Silver Fox, Sabertooth and Weapon X. tho I wonder how they'll fit Cyclops in there and what role Gambit will be playing?

Mel Gibson would have killed WWII like he killed jesus.:tongue:

Yeah, look what he did to We Were Soldiers.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/we_were_soldiers/

Nothing original sells, so nothing original is created. It's the same with music and literature.

actualy that movie is a remake of the same movie that was a hit in the 50's

Yeah, look what he did to We Were Soldiers.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/we_were_soldiers/

I tried watching we were soliders, and I couldn't get past the first 15 minutes.


Braveheart may have been a good film, but Mel Gibson produces utter shite.



...just like Clint Eastwood.:eek:

I tried watching we were soliders, and I couldn't get past the first 15 minutes.


Braveheart may have been a good film, but Mel Gibson produces utter shite.



...just like Clint Eastwood.:eek:

Ooh. You dissed a Hollywood legend in an online forum. Sooo brave. Sooo edgy.

Pretty much all the movies this winter sucked.

The Day the Earth Stood Still completely sucked. Even Harry potter seemed better.

I dunno, as a fan of the original Day, I still liked this new version. Of course, I hated the new-age treehugging bit, but I could overlook that. I loved the GORT scene in the military base, "What's with the government and acronyms?"

But, that's just me, it seems.

Pretty much all the movies this winter sucked.

The Day the Earth Stood Still completely sucked. Even Harry potter seemed better.

Seven Pounds is the best movie out so far this winter (at least that I've seen)

Yes Man is 2nd.