Ask The Gold Trumpet

[godardian]

also: i'm not sure what this argument is.  are you saying that because 2001 had good special effects, it couldnt have any good effect on movies?

This is what's annoying me. Star Wars had a bad effect on the box office economy, and 2001 made Star Wars possible, so 2001 is to blame?

This argument is (or at least has gone) completely insane. 2001 is like The Velvet Underground; a serious movie made by a die-hard movie-lover that many die-hard movie-lovers love (or hate for well-considered reasons) and that is hugely influential on a large number of those who really love cinema. Star Wars is like a disco-hits album you bought at the supermarket; infinitely more popular than The Velvet Underground, but it will date very badly and is infinitely less worthy of your time, thought, or money.

I think it's ridiculous to think of 2001 as a "special effects" movie (which the Star Wars movies definitely are; without the tricks and gimmicks, the "special effects glamor" GT mentioned, why else would those godforsaken movies exist?), though its use of special effects is impressive. It's so, so much more than pretty special effects. For Kubrick, the special effects are a beloved and very carefully employed tool, not a crutch.

To me, the only- and I mean the only- truly relevant question is: Is Stanley Kubrick a filmmaker for the ages, as opposed to George Lucas, whose head is evidently so far up his own ass that he hasn't ever actually seen a movie? I'm entirely certain that anything who's been influenced by Kubrick is bound to make better films than anyone influenced by Lucas. Box office "scores" (and this is, very sadly, how it's thought of now) will not be thought of when people are still watching 2001 fifty years from now and laughing at how popular Star Wars was.

[Gold Trumpet]

also: i'm not sure what this argument is.  are you saying that because 2001 had good special effects, it couldnt have any good effect on movies?

This is what's annoying me. Star Wars had a bad effect on the box office economy, and 2001 made Star Wars possible, so 2001 is to blame?

This argument is (or at least has gone) completely insane. 2001 is like The Velvet Underground; a serious movie made by a die-hard movie-lover that many die-hard movie-lovers love (or hate for well-considered reasons) and that is hugely influential on a large number of those who really love cinema. Star Wars is like a disco-hits album you bought at the supermarket; infinitely more popular than The Velvet Underground, but it will date very badly and is infinitely less worthy of your time, thought, or money.

I think it's ridiculous to think of 2001 as a "special effects" movie (which the Star Wars movies definitely are; without the tricks and gimmicks, the "special effects glamor" GT mentioned, why else would those godforsaken movies exist?), though its use of special effects is impressive. It's so, so much more than pretty special effects. For Kubrick, the special effects are a beloved and very carefully employed tool, not a crutch.

To me, the only- and I mean the only- truly relevant question is: Is Stanley Kubrick a filmmaker for the ages, as opposed to George Lucas, whose head is evidently so far up his own ass that he hasn't ever actually seen a movie? I'm entirely certain that anything who's been influenced by Kubrick is bound to make better films than anyone influenced by Lucas. Box office "scores" (and this is, very sadly, how it's thought of now) will not be thought of when people are still watching 2001 fifty years from now and laughing at how popular Star Wars was.

While my respect for 2001 has wained in the last year, I do understand what everyone is saying. Yes, 2001 made Star Wars possible and maybe because of its intent, really is not to blame at all. But, I don't think 2001 really is that great of an achievement and when people see art through technology before anything else, I can understand that. Many people believe that Kubrick post 2001 became so increasingly obcessed with filmmaking that he lost his touch of being interesting with the stories, actors and dialogue and in 2001, see not a great art film, but a magnificent display of filmmaking before all and sadly, I must side with this group more so these days. Kubrick doesn't hold up well for me at all. And yea, I realize the shit storm this is going to create.

[modage]

Many people believe that Kubrick post 2001 became so increasingly obcessed with filmmaking that he lost his touch of being interesting with the stories, actors and dialogue and in 2001, see not a great art film, but a magnificent display of filmmaking before all and sadly, I must side with this group more so these days. Kubrick doesn't hold up well for me at all.

but arent most of the art films of the 60's that you admire known mostly for their filmmaking techniques and/or their ideas not the stories they were telling?  (the how, not the what?)  wouldnt 2001 be just as worthy under those qualifications?

[Jeremy Blackman]

But, I don't think 2001 really is that great of an achievement and when people see art through technology before anything else, I can understand that.

If you think that's why people appreciate 2001, you need to read this thread...

http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5802

Kubrick post 2001 became so increasingly obcessed with filmmaking that he lost his touch of being interesting with the stories, actors and dialogue

How is it a bad thing that he [supposedly] shed the burden of conventional storytelling?

[Gold Trumpet]

Many people believe that Kubrick post 2001 became so increasingly obcessed with filmmaking that he lost his touch of being interesting with the stories, actors and dialogue and in 2001, see not a great art film, but a magnificent display of filmmaking before all and sadly, I must side with this group more so these days. Kubrick doesn't hold up well for me at all.

but arent most of the art films of the 60's that you admire known mostly for their filmmaking techniques and/or their ideas not the stories they were telling?  (the how, not the what?)  wouldnt 2001 be just as worthy under those qualifications?

Its an interesting idea, but of course I'd back that up with all the art films from the 60s I liked and I thought were progressive in filmmaking techniques and ideas also had good stories to back them up. (I never said I loved the films of the 60s alone on structure) Of course, I don't love all the films from 60s and certain members can speak very highly of this I'm sure. Its a case by case situation and I don't think 2001 holds up that great. I like the film, but I cannot say its divine anymore.

[Gold Trumpet]

But, I don't think 2001 really is that great of an achievement and when people see art through technology before anything else, I can understand that.

If you think that's why people appreciate 2001, you need to read this thread...

http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5802

Sorry, I misspoke there. I meant to say I understand how people see great art through all the technology on the surface level of the film.

Kubrick post 2001 became so increasingly obcessed with filmmaking that he lost his touch of being interesting with the stories, actors and dialogue

How is it a bad thing that he [supposedly] shed the burden of conventional storytelling?

Too general to defend. I hardly believe Kubrick became that experimental in his storytelling after 2001 in any point besides Barry Lyndon. He kept pretty in line with his stories that I never thought he was that unique and many other filmmakers pushed further with their stories. Again, I believe his art was solely in his filmmaking abilities mainly and he glided his filmmaking with stories that were very general compared to many other films, films comparable to other films by other filmmakers who delved a lot better than Kubrick I think did.

[Thrindle]

GT,

And will you let me read to you on summer afternoons?

Yes, cause if its a quality early 20th century book from an over priced second hand book store, I'll at least be able to appreciate the richness of the words in one sense even if I'm actually bored.

Would you allow me to sing in the car, while you were driving, without reaching to turn up the music?

With your talent of actual singing (I have none), you could elimate all reason for me to even own a cd player in my car.

Could I read you my poetry in the afternoon on the sundeck, and would you tell me you like it, no matter how meloncholy, melodramatic, or ridiculous it may be?

You could and the words you chose to spoke wouldn't even matter. The moving picture I could stare at of you reading, looking up slightly, quietly smiling, would be enough. Added upon that the soundtrack of your voice and its enough to daze and dream with for hours. Consider yourself blushed, consider myself slighlty embrassed.

Could I stay in my pajamas all day long (while watching movies) and would you still think I was cute?

I'd definitely find you cute, but we must take into account your totalitarian love of good hygeine for yourself but mostly for others around you.

Just smile and ask yourself: what were the odds?

[Gold Trumpet]

GT,

Just smile and ask yourself: what were the odds?

Thinking about the odds of us back then is fretting but thinking about the reality of us now is quite nice. No words can describe my smile these days.

[Pedro]

awwwwww.  cute.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Why did admins want to close Thrindle's thread when your thread is getting this high?

[NEON MERCURY]

GT,

Just smile and ask yourself: what were the odds?

Thinking about the odds of us back then is fretting but thinking about the reality of us now is quite nice. No words can describe my smile these days.

you know what would be cool ......and neat and lovely at the same time?.
if GT proposed to thrindle in the "ask thrindle" thread and she accepted ..and the wedding vows/services were held in the  xixax chat room....it would be an xixax first........


just an idea  though...........

[Pedro]

GT,

Just smile and ask yourself: what were the odds?

Thinking about the odds of us back then is fretting but thinking about the reality of us now is quite nice. No words can describe my smile these days.

you know what would be cool ......and neat and lovely at the same time?.
if GT proposed to thrindle in the "ask thrindle" thread and she accepted ..and the wedding vows/services were held in the  xixax chat room....it would be an xixax first........


just an idea  though...........

right.  now, when he does it, it wouldn't be original and/or surprising....

should've PMed that shit.

you know GT, though...he's just in it for the action

[NEON MERCURY]

you know GT, though...he's just in it for the action

......hahaha.

yeah, i have this theory on GT that ..
1. he is actaully a frat boy
2. he's more into music than film
3. he drinks heiniken likes its going out of style..and he smokes cloves.
4.  he sales insurance
5.  he looks like a sexier patrick swayze mixed w/ some joaquin phoenix thrown in for good measure
6.  scored 1389 on his SATs
7. he is mod-ages's doppleganger

[Thrindle]

I dyed my hair black.  Do you still love me?

[Gold Trumpet]

I dyed my hair black.  Do you still love me?

To your shock and amazement I'm sure, but yes, I do!