i have loved, i love, and i will love again, but that has nothing to do with jj abrams being an unimaginative rube
Lost was pretty imaginative when it hit the airwaves
if i recall correctly, abrams was only involved in the conception of the basic idea and in crafting the pilot. by the end of episode one, we knew that the show looked pretty and that it had promise, but was, by definition, thematically and mythologically hollow so early in the run.
we have damon lindelof and carlton cuse to thank for building the mythology and characters of the show, and also them to denounce for their complete disregard of their own work during season 6.
So, one could say that due to the vision of Abrams, the show was pretty original and spectacular but due to the execution of lindelof and cuse the show became a horrid and hollow time waster?
i guess when all that's being asked of abrams is to blow things up and craft little moments of interaction that are defined solely by the bounds of chaos, yes. but when it's time for the third act, you can't rely on those tricks anymore--you need to have a sense of your themes and your characters, and write and ending that's not reliant on a deus ex machina that has nothing to do with the established themes or images of the movie. (see: Super 8, ending with a monster rampage and then some sort of awed moment when the alien went to heaven or something)
god, i feel like mcparadigm
who are you
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Malloy wrote:michael fried has a thing where he says, if you place two paintings next to each other on a wall, one painting kills the other one. and that's pretty convincing. on one hand, there's a ''feelings-y'' account for why that happens. the beholder may prefer landscape impressionists to post-minimalist painters, or the reader crime fiction to the romantics. but that account has nothing to do with their values as artworks and everything to do with taste. on the other hand, one can argue that beauty is both historical (in a hegelian sense) and formal: art is always trying to solve a particular formal or representational problem, and that problem is historical in so much as the work must respond (directly or not) to and advance beyond all those works that precede it. and that gets you a framework in which interpretation and criticism can happen. maybe that framework is subjective to the extent that one prioritizes formal problems (flatness in painting after monet being one example) within it. however, i think there are better or worse accounts for why a formal problem is significant in a particular historical moment. so: team objectivity.
That’s a strong argument. But, again, for me it all comes back to a simple truth. One can easily argue that, in an academic sense, The Godfather solves “a particular formal or representational problem” better than If Lucy Fell. But if If Lucy Fell is speaking to me on a truer emotional level, if the sensuality of its camera movement is moving me more deeply, if I find its visuals more immersive and luminous, am I wrong in saying I think If Lucy Fell is a better movie? Art speaks in more than just historical and academic terms.
Malloy wrote:michael fried has a thing where he says, if you place two paintings next to each other on a wall, one painting kills the other one. and that's pretty convincing. on one hand, there's a ''feelings-y'' account for why that happens. the beholder may prefer landscape impressionists to post-minimalist painters, or the reader crime fiction to the romantics. but that account has nothing to do with their values as artworks and everything to do with taste. on the other hand, one can argue that beauty is both historical (in a hegelian sense) and formal: art is always trying to solve a particular formal or representational problem, and that problem is historical in so much as the work must respond (directly or not) to and advance beyond all those works that precede it. and that gets you a framework in which interpretation and criticism can happen. maybe that framework is subjective to the extent that one prioritizes formal problems (flatness in painting after monet being one example) within it. however, i think there are better or worse accounts for why a formal problem is significant in a particular historical moment. so: team objectivity.
That’s a strong argument. But, again, for me it all comes back to a simple truth. One can easily argue that, in an academic sense, The Godfather solves “a particular formal or representational problem” better than If Lucy Fell. But if If Lucy Fell is speaking to me on a truer emotional level, if the sensuality of its camera movement is moving me more deeply, if I find its visuals more immersive and luminous, am I wrong in saying I think If Lucy Fell is a better movie? Art speaks in more than just historical and academic terms.
that's cool. i'm totally comfortable with conversations revolving around personal reactions and affect. and i don't desire a world in which the only conversation about art is an academic one. that said, i don't want to live in one that's the inverse, either. having made those concessions, i do think the dominant conception of art (and social life) is as purely subjective experiences, and because of political (and to a lesser extent aesthetic) beliefs, sometimes i can't resist adding my .02
Jorge wrote:I remember I was in Miami when it happened. I was posting from the balcony of my apartment overlooking the beach. And I was having an argument with Adamdude.
Malloy wrote:michael fried has a thing where he says, if you place two paintings next to each other on a wall, one painting kills the other one. and that's pretty convincing. on one hand, there's a ''feelings-y'' account for why that happens. the beholder may prefer landscape impressionists to post-minimalist painters, or the reader crime fiction to the romantics. but that account has nothing to do with their values as artworks and everything to do with taste. on the other hand, one can argue that beauty is both historical (in a hegelian sense) and formal: art is always trying to solve a particular formal or representational problem, and that problem is historical in so much as the work must respond (directly or not) to and advance beyond all those works that precede it. and that gets you a framework in which interpretation and criticism can happen. maybe that framework is subjective to the extent that one prioritizes formal problems (flatness in painting after monet being one example) within it. however, i think there are better or worse accounts for why a formal problem is significant in a particular historical moment. so: team objectivity.
That’s a strong argument. But, again, for me it all comes back to a simple truth. One can easily argue that, in an academic sense, The Godfather solves “a particular formal or representational problem” better than If Lucy Fell. But if If Lucy Fell is speaking to me on a truer emotional level, if the sensuality of its camera movement is moving me more deeply, if I find its visuals more immersive and luminous, am I wrong in saying I think If Lucy Fell is a better movie? Art speaks in more than just historical and academic terms.
that's cool. i'm totally comfortable with conversations revolving around personal reactions and affect. and i don't desire a world in which the only conversation about art is an academic one. that said, i don't want to live in one that's the inverse, either. having made those concessions, i do think the dominant conception of art (and social life) is as purely subjective experiences, and because of political (and to a lesser extent aesthetic) beliefs, sometimes i can't resist adding my .02
And to be clear, I am not saying that academic knowledge and historical context aren't valuable in art criticism; they certainly are. What I'm getting at is that I believe all art criticism is subjective, but that the critic should use learned acumen and shrewd examination when forming that criticism. A lot of the things you're talking about are part of that, I just don't agree that they amount to objectivity.
According to Jason from MakingStarWars.net,
A very green mixed deciduous forest paints the background. This location is in the thick of it, that’s for sure. There is a large hole in the ground. The hole is in the shape of a hexagon. The hole is for a metallic structure of some kind, very Imperial looking, indicating an underground Imperial base. Each line of the hexagon has a pillar sticking out of it about the size of a man. These could be to give troops exiting the underground facility some cover to fight off attackers, if the pillars serve any function at all. Each line of the hexagon inside has two lights, which illuminate the underground structure we can barely see into. There appears to be a ramp inside leading to the surface.
Outside of the structure is a data terminal of some kind. It reminds me of Star Wars Galaxies in a way. But who cares about that?
Emerging from the “Imperial hole in the ground” are none other than Han Solo and the mighty Chewbacca! Han Solo wears his classic black vest and pants. His gun is raised in the air, ready to shoot first if need be! Chewbacca stands to his left, he appears to hold a big riffle type blaster, no robotic hand, and his classic bandolier over his shoulder. We can see the two heroes from an angle behind the pillars they are using for cover as they look towards the camera for any foes to attack.
So it appears Han and Chewie have a scene or sequence together in the film where it is just them.
In the concept art, they appear ready for a straight fight, but they’re still sneaking around.
Very interesting. Really makes you wonder how Han and Chewie got into this mess. I guess we'll have to wait until December 18, 2015 to find out!
According to Jason from MakingStarWars.net,
A very green mixed deciduous forest paints the background. This location is in the thick of it, that’s for sure. There is a large hole in the ground. The hole is in the shape of a hexagon. The hole is for a metallic structure of some kind, very Imperial looking, indicating an underground Imperial base. Each line of the hexagon has a pillar sticking out of it about the size of a man. These could be to give troops exiting the underground facility some cover to fight off attackers, if the pillars serve any function at all. Each line of the hexagon inside has two lights, which illuminate the underground structure we can barely see into. There appears to be a ramp inside leading to the surface.
Outside of the structure is a data terminal of some kind. It reminds me of Star Wars Galaxies in a way. But who cares about that?
Emerging from the “Imperial hole in the ground” are none other than Han Solo and the mighty Chewbacca! Han Solo wears his classic black vest and pants. His gun is raised in the air, ready to shoot first if need be! Chewbacca stands to his left, he appears to hold a big riffle type blaster, no robotic hand, and his classic bandolier over his shoulder. We can see the two heroes from an angle behind the pillars they are using for cover as they look towards the camera for any foes to attack.
So it appears Han and Chewie have a scene or sequence together in the film where it is just them.
In the concept art, they appear ready for a straight fight, but they’re still sneaking around.
Very interesting. Really makes you wonder how Han and Chewie got into this mess. I guess we'll have to wait until December 18, 2015 to find out!
i'm gonna ruin it for everybody, dime: han and chewie fight bad guys at some point
Malloy wrote:making this place inhospitable to posting is really the only move left.
duh.
