Movie confessions!

Started by Sigur Rós, May 29, 2003, 09:10:40 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User actions

Sigur Rós

#30
May 29, 2003, 03:07:24 PM
Wauw Ebeaman you did some serious confessing! I didn't agree with it all though!

Ernie

#31
May 29, 2003, 03:12:21 PM
Thank you...thank you. I just had to do it all...I just couldn't stop typing. It feels good to get all that out in the open.

This is a great thread by the way.

MacGuffin

#32
May 29, 2003, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: ebeamanI think it's laughable that some people find the 40's and 50's to be the golden age of film...the golden age was definitely the 70's. We were just starting out in the 40's and 50's...of course there are some great films in those decades but the best OVERALL decade for film thus far is the 70's...there were a lot more inventions and new filmmaker's that just fucking turned cinema upside down...it's a beautiful thing.

I find it laughable that you think movies started in the 40's and 50's when "Wings" won the first Academy Award for 1927-28. Point being, they found movies important enough before those years to set up an entire academy.

So, to warrant a statement that bold, I'm sure you've seen at least as many movies from both the 40's/50's and 70's to make  fair comparison.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Sigur Rós

#33
May 29, 2003, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: ebeamanThank you...thank you. I just had to do it all...I just couldn't stop typing. It feels good to get all that out in the open.

This is a great thread by the way.

Don't you feel naked, now that we know all your secrets?

btw. thx

SoNowThen

#34
May 29, 2003, 03:28:06 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: ebeamanI think it's laughable that some people find the 40's and 50's to be the golden age of film...the golden age was definitely the 70's. We were just starting out in the 40's and 50's...of course there are some great films in those decades but the best OVERALL decade for film thus far is the 70's...there were a lot more inventions and new filmmaker's that just fucking turned cinema upside down...it's a beautiful thing.

I find it laughable that you think movies started in the 40's and 50's when "Wings" won the first Academy Award for 1927-28. Point being, they found movies important enough before those years to set up an entire academy.

So, to warrant a statement that bold, I'm sure you've seen at least as many movies from both the 40's/50's and 70's to make  fair comparison.

Why would he have to see exactly as many? They made less movies back then. If he saw, say, 20 films from 50's Hollywood, I would say that's enough to make a judgement.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

MacGuffin

#35
May 29, 2003, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenWhy would he have to see exactly as many? They made less movies back then. If he saw, say, 20 films from 50's Hollywood, I would say that's enough to make a judgement.

So you don't play fair? And only a handful of films would generalize those decades? Less movies back then? The studios had an entire staff of writers and directors to crank out films. Remember, there was no TV, so films were the escape. Back then, it was not uncommon to see a double feature because the studios ran the theaters too.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

SoNowThen

#36
May 29, 2003, 04:03:28 PM
Well, I could be wrong, but I was under the impression they made more films now than at any time.

At any case, yes, I do believe a handful is enough to make a comparison. Obviously no one has enough time to watch EVERY film, so you need to keep it a realistic amount. And again, we can say we liked any decade we want, if we can back it up. I find that 70's American films deal with subjects that are more interesting to me than any other generation of filmmakers, therefore I prefer 70's films. But I would be one of the first people to argue that 90's films are just as good, simply because it was the here-and-now of when I started getting into movies, and a good number of my favs are from this era.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Sigur Rós

#37
May 29, 2003, 04:06:58 PM
I'm not a admin or anything, but it would be nice if you 2 would continue your discussion on PM. You are ruining the thread!  :wink:

SoNowThen

#38
May 29, 2003, 04:08:18 PM
Sorry, I will stop.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Ernie

#39
May 29, 2003, 04:43:57 PM
Let me just say one more thing.

I have seen more than enough movies from the 30's and 40's and 50's to say that IN GENERAL, they are not as good as the films of the 70's. Trust me, I've seen enough of them.

I didn't wait to call PTA a great filmmaker until I saw ALL of his films. I've been saying it ever since Boogie Nights was the only PTA film I had ever seen. So, why should I have to see ALL the films of the 70's to call it a great decade for film? Or see ALL the films of the 50's, 40's, and 30's to call them non-golden age decades?

Let me just get back to what I mean by "just starting out" by the way...I realize I may have been misunderstood. You are right, the 20's and 30's are when we were truly "starting out"...but film as we know it, the older films most comparable to those of today didn't start getting made till the 40's or 50's...that's what I meant when I said we were "just starting out." And please, keep in mind, I am NOT saying the films of those decades were bad by ANY stretch. Some of them are fucking GREAT. I just feel that film as a whole really and truly came alive and really became something special in the 70's...that's how I feel. That's the golden age for me. I'm not the only one that feels that way either...Altman and Scorsese say the same...go try to tell them different. Wanna hear another bold statement? I think that a lot of the films of the 40's and 50's are exactly the same...there were all those sentimental romances and everything...there were a lot of repeats. It's weird that in the 70's (a later decade) there was a wider variety of films. That's another reason why it's better. Filmmaker's were taking more chances, formulas were just starting to get ignored...it gives me chills to think about it.

Ok, sorry...back to the confessions. This really is an awesome thread, I don't want to ruin it.

Alethia

#40
May 29, 2003, 04:48:40 PM
i was disappointed by short cuts (still liked it, just expected more, maybe its cuz i was so turned off by the characters, i need to watch it again)

i think pta uses too many 'and's in his writing (one of his few flaws)

i am a fan of QT's acting style

i too didnt like holy grail (life of brian is hilarious tho)

i have a soft spot for the american pie movies (and road trip as well)

i hate most of john water's movies (MOST, not all)

have never seen gone with the wind...altho im sure that wont bother many

and i cant think of anything else

MacGuffin

#41
May 29, 2003, 04:53:31 PM
Quote from: ebeamanI'm not the only one that feels that way either...Altman and Scorsese say the same...go try to tell them different.

Okay, I'll have Scorsese watch this to refresh his memory:

"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Gold Trumpet

#42
May 29, 2003, 04:54:01 PM
I will back up Macguffin's statement of that there were more movies made back in the 1950s and even before. Thing is, even back in the early 1940s, it is averaged that millions and millions more of people went to the movies than people do today. The only reason you see inflated grosses on movies is through inflation of prices but the main form of entertainment back then was the movies until television changed it all and became the most competitive form of entertainment against the movies. I've found the more you dig into movies, the more you desire movies from the past. Yes, cliche films ran as much as they do today but there is still much to learn and appreciate from the films of the past and you stop seeing that Wings won the first Oscar in the late 1920s and that masters of filmmaking were popping up as early as the mid 1910s. It's a good argument to say the golden age of film did come in the 1970s because of the idepedence found in financing for daring movies and all, but it shouldn't stop people from shutting out the earlier time periods. That's the worst approach.

~rougerum

MrBurgerKing

#43
May 29, 2003, 05:22:52 PM
* I didn't understand the end of Adaptation until I read reviews on the internet.

* I'd say Singin' in the Rain is good but not a great movie.

* I'd like to consider Werner Herzog one of my favorites but I've only seen about 3 of his works. Is it fair to put him on any kind of top 10 list after only 3 of his works?

* I only watch and really enjoy movies and dvds later at night sitting in complete darkness (or any time of the day at the cinema).

* On some nights late at night I get in my car and go to the Wendy's drive-through. They are open late, so I can eat great any time.

* I enjoy eating Wendys chicken sandwiches late at night while watching a film.

* I enjoy eating snacks and food in general late at night while watching. The wendys thing is actually a lie, but as I wrote it I realized what a great idea it was.

* Maybe I'll go to Wendys tonight in the AM and order a burger (and what is it with their burgers, square shaped. For some reason it's a brilliant idea, but I can never get excited over square pizza).

* I've eaten at McDonalds a couple times in my life. I hate that store, absolutely digusting. I have nothing but contempt for it. You guys might say 'so why do you always talk about it?' Freud could tell you better than I could. I never give McDonalds a second thought though in the real world.

* I used to go to Burger King and / or Wendys about 10 meals a week. Fortunately, I'm not that overweight, because I walk to work daily. Kind of like the concept of the dog running on a treadmill while you hold a hotdog in front of it.

* During finals week, I stay up till at least 4-5 AM watching movies and eating junk.  

* I've dated a fat woman out of pity once, and she chose McDonalds over me. Even fat women can be terrible people.

Sleuth

#44
May 29, 2003, 05:36:57 PM
Yep, you're single.

might as well make this post count...

--I've seen a Godfather, or possible a combination of them, but I can't remember because I was too young

--I don't think Keanu is as bad as people say he is
I like to hug dogs
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User actions