 
|
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 |
66.161.249.110
In Reply to: I don't get your analogy posted by Bulkington on June 27, 2005 at 12:55:27:
It is important to know of the individual's biases in assessing the value of their opinion. If a reviewer was a dyed in the wool tube-o-phile, and they disparaged a solid state design, what would you conclude about their opinion? Probably, they like the sound of tube amplifiers, not solid state, and were therefore given to dislike the solid state amplifier before they even listened to it, and their opinion is probably too colored to be of any value, unless you too are a dyed in the wool tube-o-phile. And writing that they like the fantasy genre, even though they have never seen one they liked, is like saying they like solid state amplifiers, but have never heard one they liked. Makes no sense. And I loved the Sinbad films, warts and all.I think the point of the folks who defend LOTR is that there are many different kinds of films which attempt to achieve different results, and are designed to satisfy different tastes. Do you listen to the Beatles with the same frame of mind and with the same goals you do Bach? Do you compare The Beatles with the same analysis you do Bach? Would you judge The Beatles with the same criteria you would Bach? LOTR is not "high-art", nor was it intended to be. It was intended to be escapist fun, the operative word being fun. If your life is always serious, and devoid of fun, then LOTR is not the film for you. Save yourself time and energy.
Do you not listen to some music just because it makes you feel good? Do you always look for some amorphous concept of "art" in music or films? Do you not watch some films simply for entertainment? To escape reality? To enter a different world? If not, then I would respectfully suggest you are missing a large part of the fun of films in general, and LOTR in particular.
At the end of the day, the only question is whether you had fun watching LOTR, because that is all is asks. Because you concentrated on the warts and logical gaps, it was more of a mental exercise, and you disliked the film. Fine. I concentrated on the visuals, and the escapist trappings, the hollow fun and joy of filmmaking that was evident on the screen, and, despite flaws, had fun.
How smart can you be in asking a film to deliver something it never intended to deliver, and then criticising it for it's failure? Obvously, too smart. To paraphrase Quint, film's philosopher extrodinaire: "It proves you college boys do not have the education to admit when you are wrong."
Follow Ups:
LOTR is not "high-art", nor was it intended to be. It was intended to be escapist fun, the operative word being fun. If your life is always serious, and devoid of fun, then LOTR is not the film for you. Save yourself time and energy.What do you mean by high art? What do you mean by fun? Where do you get this notion that the films' detractors are a bunch of frowning grumps?
I don't see the LoTR films as the Beatle's to some imagined alternate version as Bach. I see them more as, I don't know:
"Stonehenge, where the demons dwell
Where the banshees live and they do live well
Stonehenge
Where a man is a man and the children dance to
the pipes of pan
Stonehenge
Tis a magic place where the moon doth rise
With a dragon's face
Stonehenge
Where the virgins lie
And the prayer of devils fill the midnight sky
And you my love, won't you take my hand
We'll go back in time to that mystic land
Where the dew drops cry and the cats meow
I will take you there
I will show you how"How smart can you be in asking a film to deliver something it never intended to deliver, and then criticising it for it's failure?
What do you think I wish it had delivered instead?
I am glad you brought up the music subject, as it demonstrates how wrong you are.One does not evaluate (intuitively) works of art based on their genre.
When I am driving and a catchy and beautiful country song hits the air, I do not think: "This is a country song, so I better quickly change my scale to properly evaluate it".
No, I simply instantly know whether it speaks to me.
And I instantly do the same for jazz, classical, folk, pop... doesn't matter one bean. There are great things to be found everywhere, and you know when you find them. If thing is beautiful then you can see it right away... provided, of course, you have sufficient education, experience, intuition etc.
Same with movies. I completely reject the notion of defining genre. If you have to mention the genre as a crutch, then the movie is deficient. I don't usually watch animations, but I took a look at the Shrek, and it hit a good note, in a matter of a couple of minutes.
Nothing like that is present in the LOTR. It simply didn't matter to me whether it was on or off, I could have walked away any second. With Shrek I wanted to continue watching.
Shrek?????????!!!??????????!!!!!!???????
I did not see the whole movies, probably about 3/4 of it, but what I saw was funny and well made, with good human touch, some witty lines, wonderful voice over and animation.But this was by far NOT my guiltiest pleasure. Patrick might tell you I also love Clueless... he-he... I think it is a great film.
;^)
nt
;^)
Who reads yesterday newspapers on the net?
Are you?
In fact, I may be overly tolerant of grey poupon snake-oil salesmen with no respect for Peter Jackson's epic Tolkein trilogy.When a couple of BS nancy-boys spew prattle to tear down a series of fantasy films destined to become classics for the ages they deserve whatever nastiness can be mustard, ...err mustered. ;^)
AuPh
;^)
Victor, you missed my point. Does country music satisfy the same emotions, intellectual needs or desires, or the same impulse in you, as, say classical music? I do not know your music preferences, but is there a reason, at some time in the day, you choose to listen to classical versus pop? Why? Are there some times in the day you prefer to listen to pop over classical? Or country? If so, then it is because there is some emotion, some need that one form of music addresses, and one does not. I am not suggesting that you "listen" to one with a different frame of mind. Unless of course you only listen to classical, or rock, or country. Which would be consistent with you enjoying a specific genre.Again, the use of the word "art." I am not sure what that means to you. Define it please. I suspect that if you view every film with an eye toward whether it satisfies your definition of "art", you will inevitably dislike most films, particularly those that are made to do nothing other than provide escapist entertainment. Those films will have value which you will not see, because they do not satisfy your notion of "art." Which is fine. But I can only imagine how much time you are wasting. Or is there a reason you enjoy watching films you know you will not like. What need does that exercise satisfy?
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 ]
