stip wrote:i understand that a story is more than a slow motion leap out of a firey building, possibly in a christ pose for the addition of a ‘mythic theme’
And I understand that a movie is more than a story
You said movies aren't stories earlier. So, now you're saying they are stories, but more than that? Duh. No one is arguing that.
When did I say they’re stories? I said they’re MORE THAN stories.
That's fair.
I guess I have a hard time with you making declarative statements that "movies are not stories" or "movies are more than stories" without acknowledging that the majority of society (and the dictionary) define them as a series of moving pictures that tell a story.
Wouldn't you say the vast majority of movies tell some sort of a story? Stories don't define the medium by any means, but they provide a basic framework.
The majority of society also thinks TFA is a good example of filmmaking, so forgive me if I don’t give them much credibility.
I'm not arguing about what is "good" or not. I'm asking about why your definition of a film is the "correct" definition compared to others.
I mean, there’s really no correct or incorrect when we’re dealing with art. But I am speaking based on my own experience with and knowledge of cinema, which is something I care deeply about and have been devoted to for a long time.
Stories are almost always a component of movies, yes. But I don’t think they are any more or less important a component than things like a movie’s score or cinematography. What irks me is the inordinate focus placed on story by most moviewatchers, especially these days, when the popularity of dull, plot-driven, anti-cinematic TV shows has dominated the discussion around audiovisual art. Stories are more important in some movies than others, but they certainly don’t define what movies are. In my personal opinion, they are quite low in the spectrum of cinematic importance, generally speaking.
Last edited by LoathedVermin72 on Tue December 19, 2017 5:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Strat wrote:It is kind of funny how TFA got so much flack for repeating so many star wars tropes. Now the last jedi goes quite a different route and a lot of the complains and ideas of how each story should have gone.
It's not weird or wrong though. TFA does many things right, and it took the right path in many ways. Most people loved it, and it's got a really good rating everywhere. The worst parts of the movie were when they tried to copy the original, and only did it worse, much worse. Starkiller Base might be the worst idea in all of Star Wars, and that's saying something. This is a trap that Rogue One and TLJ obviously could have fallen into as well, but didn't. Rogue One did its own thing, and still got some criticism for going to too many worlds etc. TLJ however, basically throws TFA and Star Wars history off a cliff, and does something totally different. It's not like if you didn't like Starkiller Base, you can now not think that TLJ does most things wrong.
This just isn't true though as explained multiple times.
Strat wrote:It is kind of funny how TFA got so much flack for repeating so many star wars tropes. Now the last jedi goes quite a different route and a lot of the complains and ideas of how each story should have gone.
It's not weird or wrong though. TFA does many things right, and it took the right path in many ways. Most people loved it, and it's got a really good rating everywhere. The worst parts of the movie were when they tried to copy the original, and only did it worse, much worse. Starkiller Base might be the worst idea in all of Star Wars, and that's saying something. This is a trap that Rogue One and TLJ obviously could have fallen into as well, but didn't. Rogue One did its own thing, and still got some criticism for going to too many worlds etc. TLJ however, basically throws TFA and Star Wars history off a cliff, and does something totally different. It's not like if you didn't like Starkiller Base, you can now not think that TLJ does most things wrong.
This just isn't true though as explained multiple times.
You don't agree with it, but a lot of people genuinely feel that way.
Strat wrote:It is kind of funny how TFA got so much flack for repeating so many star wars tropes. Now the last jedi goes quite a different route and a lot of the complains and ideas of how each story should have gone.
It's not weird or wrong though. TFA does many things right, and it took the right path in many ways. Most people loved it, and it's got a really good rating everywhere. The worst parts of the movie were when they tried to copy the original, and only did it worse, much worse. Starkiller Base might be the worst idea in all of Star Wars, and that's saying something. This is a trap that Rogue One and TLJ obviously could have fallen into as well, but didn't. Rogue One did its own thing, and still got some criticism for going to too many worlds etc. TLJ however, basically throws TFA and Star Wars history off a cliff, and does something totally different. It's not like if you didn't like Starkiller Base, you can now not think that TLJ does most things wrong.
This just isn't true though as explained multiple times.
You don't agree with it, but a lot of people genuinely feel that way.
A lot of people genuinely feel Donald Trump is the best president ever
Strat wrote:It is kind of funny how TFA got so much flack for repeating so many star wars tropes. Now the last jedi goes quite a different route and a lot of the complains and ideas of how each story should have gone.
It's not weird or wrong though. TFA does many things right, and it took the right path in many ways. Most people loved it, and it's got a really good rating everywhere. The worst parts of the movie were when they tried to copy the original, and only did it worse, much worse. Starkiller Base might be the worst idea in all of Star Wars, and that's saying something. This is a trap that Rogue One and TLJ obviously could have fallen into as well, but didn't. Rogue One did its own thing, and still got some criticism for going to too many worlds etc. TLJ however, basically throws TFA and Star Wars history off a cliff, and does something totally different. It's not like if you didn't like Starkiller Base, you can now not think that TLJ does most things wrong.
This just isn't true though as explained multiple times.
You don't agree with it, but a lot of people genuinely feel that way.
A lot of people genuinely feel Donald Trump is the best president ever
stip wrote:i understand that a story is more than a slow motion leap out of a firey building, possibly in a christ pose for the addition of a ‘mythic theme’
And I understand that a movie is more than a story
You said movies aren't stories earlier. So, now you're saying they are stories, but more than that? Duh. No one is arguing that.
When did I say they’re stories? I said they’re MORE THAN stories.
That's fair.
I guess I have a hard time with you making declarative statements that "movies are not stories" or "movies are more than stories" without acknowledging that the majority of society (and the dictionary) define them as a series of moving pictures that tell a story.
Wouldn't you say the vast majority of movies tell some sort of a story? Stories don't define the medium by any means, but they provide a basic framework.
The majority of society also thinks TFA is a good example of filmmaking, so forgive me if I don’t give them much credibility.
I'm not arguing about what is "good" or not. I'm asking about why your definition of a film is the "correct" definition compared to others.
I mean, there’s really no correct or incorrect when we’re dealing with art. But I am speaking based on my own experience with and knowledge of cinema, which is something I care deeply about and have been devoted to for a long time.
Stories are almost always a component of movies, yes. But I don’t think they are any more and less important a component than things like a movie’s score or cinematography. What irks me is the inordinate focus placed on story by most moviewatchers, especially these days, when the popularity of dull, plot-driven, anti-cinematic TV shows has dominated the discussion around audiovisual art. Stories are more important in some movies than others, but they certainly don’t define what movies are. In my personal opinion, they are quite low in the spectrum of cinematic importance, generally speaking.
Ok, that is totally fair. That was what I was waiting for. Can you really blame someone for putting more of an emphasis on story when critiquing a film though? For several it is easier to talk about then their own interpretations/feelings of the images on the screen. More of a surface level examination of the medium. Are you really bothered by someone enjoying the medium in their own way?
stip wrote:i understand that a story is more than a slow motion leap out of a firey building, possibly in a christ pose for the addition of a ‘mythic theme’
And I understand that a movie is more than a story
You said movies aren't stories earlier. So, now you're saying they are stories, but more than that? Duh. No one is arguing that.
When did I say they’re stories? I said they’re MORE THAN stories.
That's fair.
I guess I have a hard time with you making declarative statements that "movies are not stories" or "movies are more than stories" without acknowledging that the majority of society (and the dictionary) define them as a series of moving pictures that tell a story.
Wouldn't you say the vast majority of movies tell some sort of a story? Stories don't define the medium by any means, but they provide a basic framework.
The majority of society also thinks TFA is a good example of filmmaking, so forgive me if I don’t give them much credibility.
I'm not arguing about what is "good" or not. I'm asking about why your definition of a film is the "correct" definition compared to others.
I mean, there’s really no correct or incorrect when we’re dealing with art. But I am speaking based on my own experience with and knowledge of cinema, which is something I care deeply about and have been devoted to for a long time.
Stories are almost always a component of movies, yes. But I don’t think they are any more and less important a component than things like a movie’s score or cinematography. What irks me is the inordinate focus placed on story by most moviewatchers, especially these days, when the popularity of dull, plot-driven, anti-cinematic TV shows has dominated the discussion around audiovisual art. Stories are more important in some movies than others, but they certainly don’t define what movies are. In my personal opinion, they are quite low in the spectrum of cinematic importance, generally speaking.
Ok, that is totally fair. That was what I was waiting for. Can you really blame someone for putting more of an emphasis on story when critiquing a film though? For several it is easier to talk about then their own interpretations/feelings of the images on the screen. More of a surface level examination of the medium. Are you really bothered by someone enjoying the medium in their own way?
stip wrote:i understand that a story is more than a slow motion leap out of a firey building, possibly in a christ pose for the addition of a ‘mythic theme’
And I understand that a movie is more than a story
You said movies aren't stories earlier. So, now you're saying they are stories, but more than that? Duh. No one is arguing that.
When did I say they’re stories? I said they’re MORE THAN stories.
That's fair.
I guess I have a hard time with you making declarative statements that "movies are not stories" or "movies are more than stories" without acknowledging that the majority of society (and the dictionary) define them as a series of moving pictures that tell a story.
Wouldn't you say the vast majority of movies tell some sort of a story? Stories don't define the medium by any means, but they provide a basic framework.
The majority of society also thinks TFA is a good example of filmmaking, so forgive me if I don’t give them much credibility.
I'm not arguing about what is "good" or not. I'm asking about why your definition of a film is the "correct" definition compared to others.
I mean, there’s really no correct or incorrect when we’re dealing with art. But I am speaking based on my own experience with and knowledge of cinema, which is something I care deeply about and have been devoted to for a long time.
Stories are almost always a component of movies, yes. But I don’t think they are any more and less important a component than things like a movie’s score or cinematography. What irks me is the inordinate focus placed on story by most moviewatchers, especially these days, when the popularity of dull, plot-driven, anti-cinematic TV shows has dominated the discussion around audiovisual art. Stories are more important in some movies than others, but they certainly don’t define what movies are. In my personal opinion, they are quite low in the spectrum of cinematic importance, generally speaking.
Ok, that is totally fair. That was what I was waiting for. Can you really blame someone for putting more of an emphasis on story when critiquing a film though? For several it is easier to talk about then their own interpretations/feelings of the images on the screen. More of a surface level examination of the medium. Are you really bothered by someone enjoying the medium in their own way?
Seriously, though, it bothers me because, over time, the prevalence of these surface-level attitudes and proclivities degrades the medium I love, as evinced by the mostly dismal crop of young directors desecrating the blockbuster these days.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Seriously, though, it bothers me because, over time, the prevalence of these surface-level attitudes and proclivities degrades the medium I love, as evinced by the mostly dismal crop of young directors desecrating the blockbuster these days.
Caring about story is a surface level attitude? I would argue the opposite but its fine. Story requires far more analysis, thought, and personal attachment than big explosions and images on a screen. though, yes, paintings and imagery also require a large degree of similar approach, but to say Story is surface level is being rather obtuse.
Ultimately, though, what you find exhilarating in imagery on the screen, i find rather boring and obnoxious.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Seriously, though, it bothers me because, over time, the prevalence of these surface-level attitudes and proclivities degrades the medium I love, as evinced by the mostly dismal crop of young directors desecrating the blockbuster these days.
Would you say that is a failure of the audience, directors, or the conglomeration of the industry looking for safe bets and/or international appeal?
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Seriously, though, it bothers me because, over time, the prevalence of these surface-level attitudes and proclivities degrades the medium I love, as evinced by the mostly dismal crop of young directors desecrating the blockbuster these days.
Would you say that is a failure of the audience, directors, or the conglomeration of the industry looking for safe bets and/or international appeal?
Audience, and that shallow audience becoming a new generation of filmmakers.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Seriously, though, it bothers me because, over time, the prevalence of these surface-level attitudes and proclivities degrades the medium I love, as evinced by the mostly dismal crop of young directors desecrating the blockbuster these days.
Would you say that is a failure of the audience, directors, or the conglomeration of the industry looking for safe bets and/or international appeal?
Audience, and that shallow audience becoming a new generation of filmmakers.
Where would you say Transformers Director Michael Bay fits into this generation?
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Seriously, though, it bothers me because, over time, the prevalence of these surface-level attitudes and proclivities degrades the medium I love, as evinced by the mostly dismal crop of young directors desecrating the blockbuster these days.
Would you say that is a failure of the audience, directors, or the conglomeration of the industry looking for safe bets and/or international appeal?
Audience, and that shallow audience becoming a new generation of filmmakers.
Where would you say Transformers Director Michael Bay fits into this generation?
Cmere. Did we talk about it being Snokes image or one of his species on that force amplifier thing in the island that Luke uses? The one with the water in it that vibrates when he’s doing his thing?
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Seriously, though, it bothers me because, over time, the prevalence of these surface-level attitudes and proclivities degrades the medium I love, as evinced by the mostly dismal crop of young directors desecrating the blockbuster these days.
Would you say that is a failure of the audience, directors, or the conglomeration of the industry looking for safe bets and/or international appeal?
Audience, and that shallow audience becoming a new generation of filmmakers.
Where would you say Transformers Director Michael Bay fits into this generation?
He ain’t part of it, bub
Of course he’s not. take it to your cinematic thoughts thread and expand. I’d like to know why he isn’t.
take it to your cinematic thoughts thread and expand. I’d like to know why he isn’t.