I wasn't talking about comic based movies in particular, though I think that some comics rise to the level of art. I was more thinking along the lines of the works of Phillip K. Dick that were turned into rotten movies, Blade Runner being the obvious exception.
I think it was Winston Churchill who said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.'
People see politics as a dominance game. The monkeys that win the game get to shit on the monkeys who lost. So people don't compromise, they treat politics like hooligans treat a soccer match.
You don't understand my comment. I'm saying, the idiots in charge of entertainment are racing to the bottom, not that regular folks are. Entertainment industry execs think people can't handle real art, and just want crap spoon fed to them, but they are wrong.
So, just because you don't understand what I'm saying, and read your own, self-righteous meaning into it, doesn't mean that what I'm actually saying is wrong.
Who said anything about a crusade? Your words, not mine.
Again, just because you've realized that I am saying something 180 degrees from what you thought I said, doesn't mean you had any understanding of what I was saying in the first place.
To be clear: you misunderstood. You acted like a smug, self-congratulatory elitist who was afraid of competition in the elitism department. I made myself clearer, to help you understand. You admitted that what I'm actually saying is different than what you originally thought.
So, we are on the same page now. Glad I could help.
Well, sure. And? What's your point? I'm not trying to be elitist and say what I like is better than what anyone else likes. I'm not saying art is better than entertainment. I'm saying, I think people can actually handle quality entertainment that is also artistic. And I'm saying, specifically, Hollywood does not want to play that game, because it's too risky for them. Precisely because what you said is true: a lot of art is shit, too.
i really, really am bothered by people who have the need to feel superior to other people.
Self-hating, eh? Look, pal, I never claimed to be superior. You are the one with a superiority complex. You think people are so inferior, they can't handle anything but pure drek. You think good art is too 'elitist' for them. I, on the other hand, respect people, and feel they can handle art that isn't pre-digested for them.
I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I just say what I think. I could give a rats ass what you like, it's your business. But I am entitled to my opinion, despite what you may think.
I don't want your respect. The respect of failures with badly hidden superiority complexes isn't something I court.
Me angry? I'm not, I just thought you wanted to play 'who's the bigger asshole.' I'm perfectly willing to have a rational discussion if you are. But you started it, didn't you? Venal?! Sheesh.
The movies I like aren't your typical Hollywood fare, they aren't reboots of a film franchise of a book or comic. Even if you do consider them products of the Hollywood system, it only proves my point that movies do not have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
You want to play asshole games? You want to see who can be the bigger asshole? We've played this before and you've lost, but if you want a rematch, whatever.
It's always enjoyable discussing art and film with a failed film maker wannabee. You aren't an artist, you're a hack who wanted to sell out to Hollywood but didn't even have the talent to do that.
My favorite films:
Synechdoche, NY Adaptation 2001 Sideways Lost in Translation Blade Runner Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Being John Malkovich Magnolia Brazil
Hmm, not really many major studio films on that list, so your asinine opinion is, hmm, what were your words? Oh yes, 'intellectually dishonest and venal.' Venal? really? I'm in this for the money? Methinks though dost project too much. Maybe you should brush up on your English, kid.
What the fuck, dude? I could give a rats ass about comic book movies. I don't think everyone should like what I like. My mud slinging wasn't vague.
Your knee-jerk defense of Hollywood is hilariously misplaced. It's almost as if you feel personally insulted by what I wrote, and feel the need for revenge. Priceless.
Populism is a race to the bottom, Idiocracy style. If you as an artist don't rise, even slightly, above what your audience expects, then your audience will never learn to appreciate greater things. As an artist, neither pander to your audience nor talk over them, but lead them to greater things.
But we aren't talking about artists, are we? We're talking about corporate products produced by blank faced clones with all creativity squashed out of them.
With comics it's different. Reboots happen after a franchise has run its course and there isn't anywhere sensible left to go. Nobody does three comics and then reboots the series. You do get a decent story arc before any reboots in comic-land.
How much do you want to bet that Spiderman is going to be a broody, angsty teen who sparkles. He won't have been bitten by a radioactive spider, he will come from an ancient race of spider-men, and he is the true heir to the spider throne. Mary Jane will be some sort of mystical, prophesied Queen of the Spiders. There will, of course, be two breeds of spider-men, the web-spinners and the wolf-spiders, the first for pre-teen girls who like safe, clean looking guys, the second for pre-teen girls who like their guys scraggly and dangerous looking.
Oh God, excuse me, I think I've just made myself sick.
'Reboot,' in Hollywood-speak, means "Forget cannon. Forget the comics. Forget everything. Get a focus group of our target demographic and ask them what they want. Get a committee of corporate hack writers to write what's going to sell." Hollywood is lazy and incredibly risk-averse. They do not create art, they create vapid, bland, and safe pablum for the masses. They take art, and turn it into raw sewage. The occasional good movie that slips out is an anomaly. They will then take that rare good movie and turn it into raw sewage in sequels. Hollywood wants to create the sure thing, the thing that everyone will pay to see. They don't want to take risks on stories no one's heard of before, so the will continue raping the corpse of any successful franchise until the fans turn away in horror. Then they will 'reboot' its desecrated corpse.
Well, we have our own problems with recalcitrant and ineffective goverment over here in the USA, so I do understand. But in the final analysis, I can only blame ourselves for our problems. It isn't really the government's fault. We could probably fix them if we could just agree on how.
The story was in a recent Scientific American Mind magazine. From within the last two months. Sorry, but that's about the best I can do. If you are interested, why not Google, 'historical rates of psychological depression' or something?
People write [citation needed] when they really mean, 'I don't want people to believe you.'
So who gets the profits? The people, or investors? And if the government owns it, then can't you petition the government for change? Who do you petition for change at a corporate utility? N one, and you can't even choose another company, because utilities are natural monopolies.
Tell you what, you want to race around at high speed? Do what other responsible people do: rent some time at the track. Or, go make your own country and build your own roads. But if you want to drive on public roads, you play by our rules. Like it, lump it, or whine about it, them's the breaks, kid.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't talking about comic based movies in particular, though I think that some comics rise to the level of art. I was more thinking along the lines of the works of Phillip K. Dick that were turned into rotten movies, Blade Runner being the obvious exception.
I think it was Winston Churchill who said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.'
People see politics as a dominance game. The monkeys that win the game get to shit on the monkeys who lost. So people don't compromise, they treat politics like hooligans treat a soccer match.
You don't understand my comment. I'm saying, the idiots in charge of entertainment are racing to the bottom, not that regular folks are. Entertainment industry execs think people can't handle real art, and just want crap spoon fed to them, but they are wrong.
So, just because you don't understand what I'm saying, and read your own, self-righteous meaning into it, doesn't mean that what I'm actually saying is wrong.
Who said anything about a crusade? Your words, not mine.
Again, just because you've realized that I am saying something 180 degrees from what you thought I said, doesn't mean you had any understanding of what I was saying in the first place.
To be clear: you misunderstood. You acted like a smug, self-congratulatory elitist who was afraid of competition in the elitism department. I made myself clearer, to help you understand. You admitted that what I'm actually saying is different than what you originally thought.
So, we are on the same page now. Glad I could help.
Well, sure. And? What's your point? I'm not trying to be elitist and say what I like is better than what anyone else likes. I'm not saying art is better than entertainment. I'm saying, I think people can actually handle quality entertainment that is also artistic. And I'm saying, specifically, Hollywood does not want to play that game, because it's too risky for them. Precisely because what you said is true: a lot of art is shit, too.
i really, really am bothered by people who have the need to feel superior to other people.
Self-hating, eh? Look, pal, I never claimed to be superior. You are the one with a superiority complex. You think people are so inferior, they can't handle anything but pure drek. You think good art is too 'elitist' for them. I, on the other hand, respect people, and feel they can handle art that isn't pre-digested for them.
I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I just say what I think. I could give a rats ass what you like, it's your business. But I am entitled to my opinion, despite what you may think.
I don't want your respect. The respect of failures with badly hidden superiority complexes isn't something I court.
Hey! I liked Dune. Oh, you meant Avatar? Well, okay then.
What about Deep Crows? If the movie had Deep Crows, I'd watch it.
Me angry? I'm not, I just thought you wanted to play 'who's the bigger asshole.' I'm perfectly willing to have a rational discussion if you are. But you started it, didn't you? Venal?! Sheesh.
The movies I like aren't your typical Hollywood fare, they aren't reboots of a film franchise of a book or comic. Even if you do consider them products of the Hollywood system, it only proves my point that movies do not have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
I liked Avatar better when it was called Pocahontas.
You want to play asshole games? You want to see who can be the bigger asshole? We've played this before and you've lost, but if you want a rematch, whatever.
It's always enjoyable discussing art and film with a failed film maker wannabee. You aren't an artist, you're a hack who wanted to sell out to Hollywood but didn't even have the talent to do that.
My favorite films:
Synechdoche, NY
Adaptation
2001
Sideways
Lost in Translation
Blade Runner
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Being John Malkovich
Magnolia
Brazil
Hmm, not really many major studio films on that list, so your asinine opinion is, hmm, what were your words? Oh yes, 'intellectually dishonest and venal.' Venal? really? I'm in this for the money? Methinks though dost project too much. Maybe you should brush up on your English, kid.
I knew someone would bring that up, but the thing is, it's not a Holyywood reboot. It's just a rip off of Frank Miller's Batman.
What the fuck, dude? I could give a rats ass about comic book movies. I don't think everyone should like what I like. My mud slinging wasn't vague.
Your knee-jerk defense of Hollywood is hilariously misplaced. It's almost as if you feel personally insulted by what I wrote, and feel the need for revenge. Priceless.
Populism is a race to the bottom, Idiocracy style. If you as an artist don't rise, even slightly, above what your audience expects, then your audience will never learn to appreciate greater things. As an artist, neither pander to your audience nor talk over them, but lead them to greater things.
But we aren't talking about artists, are we? We're talking about corporate products produced by blank faced clones with all creativity squashed out of them.
With comics it's different. Reboots happen after a franchise has run its course and there isn't anywhere sensible left to go. Nobody does three comics and then reboots the series. You do get a decent story arc before any reboots in comic-land.
How much do you want to bet that Spiderman is going to be a broody, angsty teen who sparkles. He won't have been bitten by a radioactive spider, he will come from an ancient race of spider-men, and he is the true heir to the spider throne. Mary Jane will be some sort of mystical, prophesied Queen of the Spiders. There will, of course, be two breeds of spider-men, the web-spinners and the wolf-spiders, the first for pre-teen girls who like safe, clean looking guys, the second for pre-teen girls who like their guys scraggly and dangerous looking.
Oh God, excuse me, I think I've just made myself sick.
'Reboot,' in Hollywood-speak, means "Forget cannon. Forget the comics. Forget everything. Get a focus group of our target demographic and ask them what they want. Get a committee of corporate hack writers to write what's going to sell." Hollywood is lazy and incredibly risk-averse. They do not create art, they create vapid, bland, and safe pablum for the masses. They take art, and turn it into raw sewage. The occasional good movie that slips out is an anomaly. They will then take that rare good movie and turn it into raw sewage in sequels. Hollywood wants to create the sure thing, the thing that everyone will pay to see. They don't want to take risks on stories no one's heard of before, so the will continue raping the corpse of any successful franchise until the fans turn away in horror. Then they will 'reboot' its desecrated corpse.
Yes, I misspoke. It is the effort part that matters, although physical effort tends to be more satisfying.
Well, we have our own problems with recalcitrant and ineffective goverment over here in the USA, so I do understand. But in the final analysis, I can only blame ourselves for our problems. It isn't really the government's fault. We could probably fix them if we could just agree on how.
No, but they are my tastes, and I'm entitled to share my opinions, yes?
How is life any better? Well, how do you measure the quality of life?
People's personal assessment of their own happiness. At least in the studies I've read. It seems to me the only semi-accurate way to measure it.
I don't hate Doctorow or anything. I just have never understood the rabidness of his fans, and so I like to antagonize them.
Really? Is that based on anything, or just an opinion?
The story was in a recent Scientific American Mind magazine. From within the last two months. Sorry, but that's about the best I can do. If you are interested, why not Google, 'historical rates of psychological depression' or something?
People write [citation needed] when they really mean, 'I don't want people to believe you.'
So who gets the profits? The people, or investors? And if the government owns it, then can't you petition the government for change? Who do you petition for change at a corporate utility? N one, and you can't even choose another company, because utilities are natural monopolies.
Tell you what, you want to race around at high speed? Do what other responsible people do: rent some time at the track. Or, go make your own country and build your own roads. But if you want to drive on public roads, you play by our rules. Like it, lump it, or whine about it, them's the breaks, kid.