|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Yep! posted by Audiophilander on January 28, 2004 at 11:50:37:
Well Victor, had some problems with the fact that your dearest cited two films that would not enchanted two films snobs like us, but in this context in was not possible to juxatpose LOTR with " Wild Srawberries " would it be not? So she had no choice...
And the upcoming feeling of condescension may start in you, because of you and less in Victorīs post..
Of course, in the history of movies making, like in all others art form, the subjectivity of one determine the value...But as there is good taste, there is also a ladder from zero to ten!
It is like some people saying all wines are tasting the same, it depends on people taste. Ignorance and stupidity pared with arrogance of the insensible and ignorant.
LOTR in my view has not even the quality of beeing discussed, so bad I review it. But again it is fun to speak of it as some scenes in this picture may have been ( the second one had some good moments )..But there no wonder as in a seven hours film nobody can do every thing wrong....
It will find his place in the same way as " Star Wars " did.
Look the reality is just easy: Hollywood do makes movies for profit only ( 99% ) others makes them for artistisic values and of course as the rest of us, for money too. But the mixe may not be the same...
Nothing against New Zealand but their choice to beat Hollywood at their worstest, or in this case " Lucas factory ."
Victor and I try to exchange views, learn from others , as others learn from us, and without pepper the soup may be tasting lame.
LOTR is and will remain in all times to come, a gigantistic failure. But for the child in some of us, it may have some values. But no more as a " mystery train " would have.
Follow Ups:
Yep, "artistic" is what snobs call a film when no one will pay to see it! ;^)
It was not that much more.
Of course the Hollywood machine is in only for the money, every US star who got an inteview here tell you that..the latest..? KC....
But you do not have to read that..You can see it..hear it...smell it .....
You keep forgetting there is huge world outside the US, and many films that do not become popular here are considered masterpieces in many other countries.America has its unique taste, and we should admit, in many areas it is not the best.
So instead of writing the film off simply because it produce little revenue in the US, one might try to understand what people elsewhere are finding it.
But your fixation on "paying to see it" is telling.
True perhaps, but conservatively speaking I think poor taste has more application on the political scene than in films. ;^)> > > "You keep forgetting there is a huge world outside the US, ..." < < <
C'mon Victor, you DO realize that this is ME you're talkin' to here? No offense buddy, but I'm very up on what goes on outside of the US; heck, we even have a subscription to Variety, so I can see what's popular outside the US entertainment-wise.
FTR, it would appear that Europeans like American films, and often even more than their own product! Oooops! There's that nasty word "product" again. Oh well, it's probably inevitable that commercial interest will have some bearing on what people watch and the bottom line is still the bottom line: even "art" can't stand in the way of folks having a good time? :o)
There is no question many American films produce tremendous revenues abroad - that IS the strenth of American movie industry.But let's not lose our perspective - what sells most is usually not what is synonimous with high quality.
Your original point was that snobs here want to see films nobody else wants to - and to that I say that is incorrect. Even if the proportion of people in other coutries who love those obscure in the US films is being swamped by the mad hordes of the French and Italian viewers standing in line to see the Titanic.
Which is to say I suspect many more have seen and love Friday Night in France than here. So wanting to see it here doesn't qualify one as a wierdo, but rather as someone who is curious what the big world loves.
I don't even want to mention the dreaded MacDonald analogy here.
No, in reality, what sells most is usually synonimous with what most folks deem worthwhile! Everything else "usually" appears on Bravo or the Sundance Channel at 3 AM in the friggin' morning. :o)
...I have been wasting my time here.
But letīs give him another chance...King Kong is coming...Hehe..
Down with Liv Ullmann! Here comes Peter Jackson!!!!!!Too bad Liv doesn't even pass the Sundance at 3 AM test - no one shows her here. So she must be truly insignificant to "young adults".
Well, I'm glad to see that you had a change of heart and brought your bat back out to play; I brought the balls. ;^)> > > "Down with Liv Ullmann! Here comes Peter Jackson!!!!!!" < < <
I'm sure that Liv Ullmann, now in her mid-60's, still excites the bedpan brigade provided they're "up" at 3 AM in the morning, ...well, maybe her films still do when combined with one of Bob Dole's little blue pills. Now Liv Tyler, as she appeared in LoTR ...! Well, perhaps it's best not to put too much stress on those pace makers, gents.
You know, as I'm sure you are aware, as one "matures" the range of "young adults" gets wider and wider. Eventually, almost everyone fits into that category; it's called getting old.
BTW, just FYI, I'm not partial to the remaking of classics (i.e., I intensely disliked the De Laurentis abysmal remake of King Kong back in the late 70's), but if anyone can breath life into this tired overgrown overblown gorilla saga, Peter Jackson could do it.
Sheeeesh! Someone give big Vic a lace hanky and two passes to the nearest art-house; Frodo Baggins, you ain't. ;^)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: