In Reply to: Yes, but I was being polite, ... posted by Audiophilander on November 5, 2001 at 13:00:06:
"Look, it was never my intention to slaughter your sacred cow."Sacred cow ? Is 2001 beyond criticism ? Of course not- it's just beyond your attempts at criticism.
Wise directed what some might consider "great films"- but that does not make him a great director. I don't think his list of screen credits puts him in any way in the same league as Kubrick. Competent enough- when given the right material, actors and budget to work with-(hey- who isn't ?) but not a great director. Nothing he has done sets him apart from a host of others. A "new" Star Trek with new special effects will probably make a lot of money.
"The insulting description you're applying to the Star Trek series as being "children's films" suggests you may have a prejudice against films which combine action along with cerebral elements."
Prejudice ? Hardly. Films that are made for the "target" audience age of whatever the studio's research shows it to be (teens no doubt) have resulted in the "juvenilisation" of American cinema. So it goes. Market forces are what market forces are. I don't have to like films such as Star Trek, but to pretend they appeal to anything but the most ordinary adolescent's understanding of cinema is preposterous.
"Oh, I get it! You're just jealous because you DIDN'T get to see the Cinerama presentation while the format existed!"
No- you don't get it. You decided the film's one great strength was cinerama- and you went on about Imax etc. How you draw conclusions about what I have seen or haven't seen is drivel.
All of my posts on this subject critcise your opinion as being shallow - I have no wish to drift over to the right of the page. You can rant about Star trek all you like- it only proves my point.
"Charley" won the Oscar for the Best Childrens TV film in 1965.
Your posts say "Charley". You said that "Charley" won an Academy Award. Go fish for your apology. If you meant "Charly", you should have typed Charly.
Cliff Robertson won the Best Actor Academy Award in 68 for "Charly" - so what ? Does the award bestowed upon the actor somehow make Charly a great film ? Oliver! won Best Picture, Charly wasn't even nominated. Not a great year by the look of it.
In the vernacular of Oliver!- you are a right Charlie.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You are always polite, - john dem 13:56:59 11/05/01 (17)
- ... and you continue trying to insult my intelligence and that of other's here. - Audiophilander 16:07:09 11/05/01 (16)
- No...I pretty much insulted you directly. - john dem 16:59:12 11/05/01 (15)
- ... with all the sophistication of Vicomte de Valvert from the well known Rostrand play. - Audiophilander 02:03:24 11/06/01 (13)
- Re: Dunno about that, 'Phlounder - Bruce from DC 07:08:25 11/06/01 (4)
- I stand by what I said about Star Trek - The 'Motionless' Picture in it's original form, ... - Audiophilander 09:15:07 11/06/01 (3)
- DVD? I don't have no stinkin' DVD. - Bruce from DC 13:19:32 11/06/01 (2)
- Letterboxing alone is worth the purchase - padreken 15:12:55 11/06/01 (0)
- Wha-? TAPE & NO DVD! [8^o] Why, you, you... infidel, you! Ye has risen from the dark abyss Outside! - Audiophilander 14:08:00 11/06/01 (0)
- If he wasn't so pedestrian, Wise would be the Checkered Cab of directors... - john dem 07:07:39 11/06/01 (1)
- Ah, but if only your Eyes weren't Wide Shut. (nt) - Audiophilander 09:20:28 11/06/01 (0)
- Not so impressive to me - orejones 05:54:48 11/06/01 (5)
- Re: Not so impressive to me - demonica 00:39:56 11/08/01 (0)
- Robert Wise supposedly was forced to re-edit and re-shoot scenes for ... - Audiophilander 10:24:51 11/06/01 (1)
- You´re right: it was Carol Reed, not Karel Reisz. My mistake - orejones 03:18:33 11/07/01 (0)
- A minor point- - john dem 06:53:10 11/06/01 (1)
- Re: A minor point - orejones 09:09:27 11/06/01 (0)
- this reminds me of an old saw about alligators and draining swamps - late 18:20:48 11/05/01 (0)