 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: 20 Most Influential SF Movies Of All Time (In Order). posted by AudioHead on October 28, 2002 at 07:40:53:
and 1984mp
Follow Ups:
It's brilliant...and there's that Metropolis influence again ;-)But I'm wondering, how "influential" Brazil really is??? Which movies are descended from it? (Excepting Gilliam's own, of course!) Dark City? What? I'm drawing a blank.
There's a difference between influential and significant.
The list of really GOOD sci-fi is depressingly short.
in subtle ways, it has influenced many films, not all science fiction.
I see elements of Brazil in the Matrix. Goverment being more omnipotent and omnicsient than a particular god. No escaping your destiny or the feeling thereof, perception. The gloominess, and prevelent idea that the core of the individual must be destroyed for the benefit of the group. It also seems to have influenced creators of the Fifth Element, and Hudson Hawk. I Could be totally wrong though, it's been known to happen on occasion :o)mp
I myself am sometimes also wrong, so I can recognize it in others ;-)> > The gloominess, and prevelent idea that the core of the individual must be destroyed for the benefit of the group < <
Capitalism in a nutshell, if you ask me. Don't have to watch Brazil or read George Orwell to see where we're headed (or already are).
or communism or totalitarianism?Capitalism reveres the individual?
mp
Capitalism splits the individual in two, consumer and producer, in order to appropriate the individual for its own self-propagating purposes.
Take some individual responsibility in your life! Capitalism "splits the individual in two"???? What a load of horseshit! Said like someone who wants to whine about their lack of self-worth. Try producing something, and maybe you'll resolve your schizophrenia issues.
I gave at the office!
Speaks volumes about your view point of view.Self-worth derived through producing something of quality to fill a real need and making an honest profit while you're at it: that's valuable.
Self-worth derived from mindlessly stamping out millions of low-quality, over-priced objects destined for users to which the producer has no or little real connection, to fill "needs" created largely by marketing and advertising: that's mind-numbing, spirit-crushing.
The first scenario is capitalism -The second is sheep like masses (who have no one to blame but themselves) not using good judgement and opportunist businessmen taking advantage.
The difference between capitalism and totalitarianism is that in capitalism, you can choose to "follow the herd" or not. In Totalitarianism, the opportunists have guns.
( I can't baelieve you made me type totalitarianism twice this early in the morning - Doh! that's three times!)
I gave at the office!
> > The second is sheep like masses (who have no one to blame but themselves) < <Not when the mindset that allows this to happen is inculcated in the very young, as in our current public school system. Perhaps you'd be surprised to find how many Americans believe the school system is actually designed to educate and that it produces healthy, critically-minded citizens. Rather, it produces carefully "engineered" citizens who are ignorant of the contradictions in their own situations and easy to manipulate. This is close to what Orwell describes as the ability to hold two contradictory notions at the same time.
Also, the comparison to sheep doesn't really work. Sheep don't "blame."
the proof is in the pudding, and capitalism works. Name a single country that has a greater standard of living, few equal even? And the taxes the people pay in European communitites would alarm you, give you real nightmares. Inculcate, yes, I'm a teacher and that is a starting point to develop a group culture. That happens in any system. The same exact thing happens in families.. you guide your children to suit the needs of the family. We are governed to suit the needs of the governed. No our goverment/system is not perfect, none is, but like I said, name a better one...I suppose you would like a dictator?mp
Cool. I dig teachers. I'm engaged to one. My best friends are teachers. I am a teacher. And teachers are the best-intentioned people I know. Unfortunately, few of them have any idea of the historical or theoretical foundations of the institutions in which they work. Have you read Paulo Freire? How about John Gatto? I'd be happy to tell you about them off-board, but this thread has gone astray from the intended purpose of this forum.BTW, unappareled access to materials goods is NOT a measure of quality of life. Nor is heavy taxation necessarily an indication of a poor quality of life.
among others. So is being able to own a computer and share the ideas we are sharing, do you understand that some don't share in that freedom?mp
Certainly, but that doesn't make this "the best of all possible worlds."
the best world, referring to western and in particular capitalistic economic systems,....it's the best out there so far though. The whole thread started because you compared capitalism to the oppression in brazil and 1984?mp
First you're a closet lassez-faire-ist (just made that word up!), and now you are for privatizing schools! Right on, man! Power to the individual!
I gave at the office!
It sounds like he may still be in college...
ah, to be young again.
I remember taking things for granted when I was his age.
When I moved to Miami, and heard the hardships of people living in Cuba, Columbia, and Mexico...I had a wake up call.My friend in Columbia told me when she was young, the police would frequently raid her home for items her parents brought back from the states. They would even take clothes and perfume. She said she would overhear them discussing how to divide the goods.
My husband and his family where forced to leave Cuba in 1970, with only the clothes they were wearing and their passports. They could not take any of their possessions, not even pictures. And you know what, they were lucky.
mp
A professor.
something ridiculous like "capitalism splits the indvidual in two" and then not be able to back up this nonsensical statement.And then say Brazil and 1984 illustrate the pitfalls of capitalism.
That is laughable!I have asked you to supply some ideas and you can't you just talk about prefering regimes and systems that clearly oppress individuals rather than that nasty covert capitalistic oppression.
If, IF, you are a professor.....oh lord!
mpare you joking with us?:o)
> > you can't you just talk about prefering regimes and systems that clearly oppress individuals rather than that nasty covert capitalistic oppression. < <I think that what we are HEADING FOR may end up being worse than the overt oppression you're talking about. I don't PREFER either, but despise both.
schools are jailkeepers?
What about parents, are they jailkeepers too?
Don't children go to school in this perfect economic/political system you have created for yourself, and only you, because you won't share it with us.mp
To begin with, I deleted that comment. Take a look.Second, I did not claim that Brazil and 1984 illustrate my point in the way you are construing me to have claimed. 'Twas your description of the world presented there that I responded to. > > The gloominess, and prevelent idea that the core of the individual must be destroyed for the benefit of the group < < I see the same thing happening in our post-capitalist society. But you want to see Brazil and 1984 as being about totalitarianism and totalitarianism only. Disregarding that mistake, I'm arguing simply that some of the mind-control techniques shown in those films are present today in America (take corporate implanting on young consumers, for example, like the kind practiced by Mountain Dew and Nike). I'm happy to explain, or at least to TRY to articulate what I see. It's not any easy thing to do, despite the help of some of the authors I mentioned (to which I'd add Noam Chomsky as a good starting point for further reading).
Third, about my teaching credentials: I'm not on this forum to represent myself professionally (obviously!). It's a play-space. Why else would I be talking to a person masquerading as a pig?! If you want a dissertation or a rigidly rhetorical argument, look elsewhere.
to help children. Schools were designed to help societies! That is a plain fact. Referring to that strange link you provided.mp
In capitalism, the individual can be both a consumer and producer. The individual is NOT split. I don't know that philosophy you are referring to but it doesn't really make sense from what you have posted.At any rate the films I was describing earlier are cautionary tales about communism and totalitarianism and absolutely not capitalism.
mp
Totalitarianism, capitalism, consumerism... It's all about mind-control and individuals (Winston Smith, Sam Lowry) who resist the establishment or stray from the bewildered herd.
Have you lived under a totalitarianistic regieme? You may want to reconsider your stance after spending some time living under one. You will then understand the difference. If you have, my apologies.mp
No, I haven't lived under a totalitarian regime, and I do not wish to play down the tragedy of those who have. But at least in a totalitarian regime the means of oppression are evident. In the situation in which are increasingly finding ourselves as Westerners, the oppressed will grab their oppression with open arms and glazed eyes.
What state do you live in? Find a people with a BETTER quality of life plus a global perspective than westerners.And evident or not, people living in ACTUAL tyrrany have zero choice.
I can take my glazed eyes anywhere I choose. I can spend my resources however I like.There are always going to be limits placed on the individual for the sake of the group, wouldn't want it any other way.
mp
Randy
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
and just about as faithful as it could be to Orwell's original nightmare vision...
nt
.
nt
:o)
nt
Stephen Hayes is Jabberwock. Sorry for the error.
.
nt
(nt)
I'm not so sure about 1984, though. It's an excellent thought-provoking book anchored by an ageless cautionary tale, but I don't recall any film version to write home about. Of course, it's been a long time since I've seen a version of Orwell's book on film and distant memories rarely coincide with contemporary appreciation. BTW, there's another little 50's vintage SF film, The Incredible Shrinking Man, based on a Richard Matheson story, that I would certainly consider worthy of being added to most every SF fan's short list.LOL! I just re-read that last sentence ...sheeeesh! No puns were intended, ...honest! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
influential in the future of sci fi.mp
if I have to watch another slo-mo walks-on-walls and dodges-bullets scene, I'll die.Matrix, like '2001' and 'Star Wars' did more to destroy SF than any other films going. Hey Victor, I agree with you on the 2001 thing.
Once upon a time I read SF relentlessly, and it was the ideas in the stories that carried them (unfortunately seldom the characters). This has been refined, like white sugar, down into FX.
FX FX FX.
Cool for about the first 10 seconds, then its, been there, done that.
For me it's the ideas, not the images.
Randy
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
> > FX FX FX. < <Similar to the influence Alien has had, with all those monsters popping out of peoples’ chests. How often since Alien have we seen that one? (See the new Mike’s Hard Lemonade commercial, for instance.) I wonder how “influential” H.R. Geiger’s art would be wihtout Alien’s help?
reminds me of aliens too.mp
nt
Special effects should serve the story and the characterisation. It's the "idea" behind the effect that's interesting to me, withoutone, it's just so much visual wanking...a sad sign of the times that style and image is all.Geez - people see and collect movies for the effects. ARGH.
No ideas + no development = no movie, no matter how good the CGI.
(Thank God for Peter Jackson.)
However, much as Columbus is regarded above the Vikings, Polynesians or any other ancient mariners as the discoverer of the Americas, the Matrix will be sited as breaking ground with the '3D scene freeze' thing.There was a space western out about a year before the Matrix that starred Freddie Prinze Jr. that utilized this effect in a few scenes.
Rob
i agree. room has to be made for matrix.i think the betrayal in the film was kind of ridiculous. 'i should have taken the blue pill'. it didn't make sense that the guy wanted to go back and be duped by the matrix.
and sure, the explanation of how machines took over the world was ridiculous too, except the idea of the energy in people being like batteries which another species could harness.
but i don't think a film gets much better than matrix in a realistic metaphorical impact. the special effects are fantastic too. to see the man plucked out of his cage/chamber, and to see a whole world of similar trapped beings, and to see those bug/robotic things hunt the craft, was amazing.
the real world, the destroyed world looked pretty fantastic too.
the opening scene of 'swordfish' (the next film by this director) was pretty fantastic too. but the film could not deliver like the matrix could.
'matrix' is a sci-fi film of true philosophical import. in between action scenes was a film of philosophical importance.
the description and explanation of 'matrix' is what makes this film really above all sci-fi's.
sorry 'terminator'......
I suspect you are unfortunately right... long sigh...
and a couple of the characters where cheesy enough, kind of like terminator, but the plot was excellent. And I enjoyed the filming and the scene staging. The special effects were unique and the director did try to create a mood. The mystical approach was somewhat novel and different, and I can respect that creatively.Although for Canoe Reeves, in the acting arena, it was his finest hour :o)
mp
... not that Keanu is capable of great acting. I am saying that great acting could kill a movie like "Matrix". Actors have to play 2nd fiddle to the "Lost in Space" plot, "Xena : Warrior Princess" action & the "Avengers" style. It's far from revolutionary. It's more evolutionary. It was meant to have a surreal "Laura Croft" video-game edge to it (which was obviously missing it the cheesy film of the same name). Anyway, a high caliber actor with impelling stage presence would upstage the film IME. In direct contradiction, I site "Planet of the Apes(1969)". There Chuck Heston carried the film as can be witnessed by the apalling sequels.
» moderate Mart £ « Planar Asylum
.
Powerful, multi-layered performance as Don John in Much Ado About Nothing.Johnny Utah meets the Bard.....'verily and for sooth, Dude'
Rob
When I think of Keanu uttering lines like "she's like the air to me" I just cringe. I do like that film, though- the beautiful cinematography and excellent supporting performances (particularly Anthony Quinn and the actor who played the father) make it worth watching.
.
I mean, come on! A dozen different actors could have played his part in the Matrix--he wasn't the star, the effects were the real star.
"Canoe" is just about the worst actor to have ever made it big in Hollywood, hands down.
Character acting,
and Failed!He is a male bimbo (mimbo)
mp
pretty funny if I do say so myself!mp
:o)
mpYa wanna take it to the mat!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
