Along with these changes will it include making Thing look right?

JMAfan said:
Malus.....Malus.....

People with "assumed knowledge" around here speak in objective facts...

People with "the enjoyment of what they see on the screen" speak in subjective opinions...

I've finally figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Assumed knowledge" is for those who have no argument at all.

So if you won't or can't admit the possibility of stating with objectivity what is good and what is bad, you pretend you never heard about it?

Or that's just a way of protecting your own taste?
 
Mr Sensitive said:
"Assumed knowledge" is for those who have no argument at all.

So if you won't or can't admit the possibility of stating with objectivity what is good and what is bad, you pretend you never heard about it?

Or that's just a way of protecting your own taste?

No.....I for one, was disappointed in the film, and have stated that in a thread that "I" started and discussed. Others have given their reasons why they enjoyed it, and why they thought it was good. I am not going to say that because they liked the movie, and they enjoyed it and thought it was good is only a "subjective opinion" because I think my thoughts show "more knowledge" they were and ARE just as subjective as the next person.
 
Agent 194 said:
Here's where I feel the need to jump back in. I have felt and stated this before. . .I look at what they did with Nightcrawler in X-2. They could have endlessly CGI'd his feet to look like hoofs on screen - instead I think they made a very wise decision. They just showed them less. I think if they showed Thing as he should be. . .and just be selective about what they show, how they show it; kind of a less is more approach, I could live with that. I would almost rather that see that Thing over the Thing who distracted me because he was obvously in a suit. We pretty much saw him ugly, exposed pores and all.

EDIT: and let me amend that. I'm not going to make this a rag on Tim Story time. . .but Thing in broad daylight on the bridge was a bad lighting choice IMO. Talk about exposing weaknesses.
 
JMAfan said:
No.....I for one, was disappointed in the film, and have stated that in a thread that "I" started and discussed. Others have given their reasons why they enjoyed it, and why they thought it was good. I am not going to say that because they liked the movie, and they enjoyed it and thought it was good is only a "subjective opinion" because I think my thoughts show "more knowledge" they were and ARE just as subjective as the next person.

I’m not a philosopher, but I enjoy reading philosophy.

I won’t ask a philosopher, or a professor of philosophy, or even a decent student of philosophy to pretend he knows nothing about it and to act like everything was just his very vague and subjective opinion on a given philosophic issue.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) there are people who do know some things a little better than others. To pretend it’s not true is just fostering almighty goddess Ignorance.
 
Mr Sensitive said:
I’m not a philosopher, but I enjoy reading philosophy.

I won’t ask a philosopher, or a professor of philosophy, or even a decent student of philosophy to pretend he knows nothing about it and to act like everything was just his very vague and subjective opinion on a given philosophic issue.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) there are people who do know some things a little better than others. To pretend it’s not true is just fostering almighty goddess Ignorance.

And to say that someone's opinion of a movie, they enjoyed and thought was good, is rubbish because I think my knowledge is more "knowledgeable" makes me a "pompous ass"....


Oh and BTW.....thats all just my opinion.....
 
JMAfan said:
And to say that someone's opinion of a movie, they enjoyed and thought was good, is rubbish because I think my knowledge is more "knowledgeable" makes me a "pompous ass"....


Oh and BTW.....thats all just my opinion.....


Who said it would be "rubbish"? I, for one, wouldn't say that.

But if I insist in ignorance for the sake of my opinion, that makes me a "manifest stupid"...

Now that's just my opinion.
 
Mr Sensitive said:
Who said it would be "rubbish"? I, for one, wouldn't say that.

But if I insist in ignorance for the sake of my opinion, that makes me a "manifest stupid"...

Now that's just my opinion.

exchange the word "rubbish" for "bad"...feel better now?:) "Pompous Ass" still fits in that situation....
 
JMAfan said:
exchange the word "rubbish" for "bad"...feel better now?:) "Pompous Ass" still fits in that situation....

Still off the mark.

People who enjoyed and found the movie good because of it are expressing their opinion, which was never a dilemma.

But to make it equivalent to a conscient evaluation of the movie as cinema is to make a clear confusion between two different approaches.

"Manifest Stupid" still seems perfect.
 
Mr Sensitive said:
Still off the mark.

People who enjoyed and found the movie good because of it are expressing their opinion, which was never a dilemma.

But to make it equivalent to a conscient evaluation of the movie as cinema is to make a clear confusion between two different approaches.

"Manifest Stupid" still seems perfect.


So be it....I don't enjoy going around in circles...which is what is happening here....we disagree.....moving on.
 
JMAfan said:
So be it....I don't enjoy going around in circles...which is what is happening here....we disagree.....moving on.

Maybe we can get the mods to add this smiley:

horse.gif
 
Mr Sensitive said:
And if you really think cinema is just ten bucks, drinking and eating, plus a bit of entertainment, what a poor experience it is.

If I understand you correctly, I'm just wondering what more YOU expect from a moviegoing experience.

I understand that FF didn't deliver for you (as it didn't for me) because we are long-time fans of the comic and the movie failed (IMO) to capture much of the magic of the comic. But in general, if you go to a movie that you know little about, pay your money, get some popcorn and a drink, watch the movie and are entertained, what more is missing that would have otherwise made it a 'rich' experience?
 
Willie Lumpkin said:
Maybe we can get the mods to add this smiley:

horse.gif

LOL, very true....unfortunately i'm one that has beat a few dead horses around here as well....
 
JMAfan said:
He might can be drawn in a starfish shape in the comics, but make him look more starfish on the big screen and everyone will call him spongebob's brother....
Only artist I remember drawing Thing like a starfish and that was Byrne
 
Willie Lumpkin said:
I can't remember the exact quote or where I saw it, but I seem to remember Tim Story once made a statement that at least hinted the Thing's look might evolve in the films as it did in the Comics.

Can anyone else remember what I'm thinking of, or - better yet - find the actual quote?
I remember that too, but, not sure if it was a Strykes thing or not.
 
w@llcrawler said:
If I understand you correctly, I'm just wondering what more YOU expect from a moviegoing experience.

I understand that FF didn't deliver for you (as it didn't for me) because we are long-time fans of the comic and the movie failed (IMO) to capture much of the magic of the comic. But in general, if you go to a movie that you know little about, pay your money, get some popcorn and a drink, watch the movie and are entertained, what more is missing that would have otherwise made it a 'rich' experience?


You understand me quite correctly, yes. And I’ll tell you what’s missing.

Let’s get two different examples.

The first, if you go see a movie with or without some previous knowledge of the director’s work, like, watching Jan Svankmajer’s Faust, knowing or not that he studied medieval theatre and puppet manipulation at Praga. That he is interested in the surrealist modern movement, etc.

The movie expands your sensibility, if you’re looking for more than passing fun. It presents that old conflict between two human aspirations (heavenly & earthly), but gives images never seen before, with analogy in the place of common logic. Not CGI commonplace, but very industriously handcrafted.

You leave the cinema wondering about how things in life are bound together, you consider your own experience. You start seeing the world differently by adding new forms of thought through images.

That example is valid for filmmakers like David Lynch, Jean Cocteau, Ingmar Bergman, etc.

The second, a comicbook-based movie: the ability of a director to adapt the specific qualities of the comicbook is at hand.

In great comicbook adaptations, like Sin City (directed by Rodriguez & Miller), some things of the first example apply. Everybody could see that Sin City proposed a new way to tell a story through images in the cinema. Of course, it was the first movie that did justice to the visions of Frank Miller, that made a revolution in comicbook way of telling a story two decades ago.

Bryan Singer’s X-Men (1 & 2) makes an effort to bring to great audiences some very important issues that X comicbooks always dealt with.

What is prejudice? Where to draw the line between bad and good? (read the very intelligent interviews of Ian Mackellen) and, in cases like that of movie Rogue, how teens can feel like aliens when they’re growing up. It is a metaphor, but I suppose it is very effective, like most Stan Lee’s ideas usually are, and Singer developed his vision upon these qualities.

That’s what is missing if you just pay ten bucks, sit for an hour and a half, only get your fun with some jokes and one or two cliché bruhahas, and go back home to your daily life. And that’s why audiences give huge BO to unmentionable crap.

They couldn't care less.
 
Have you ever looked at a slide under a microscope? You zoom in closer. . . and closer . . . and closer and then . . . SNAP - you break the slide.

In my opinion that's what happens when you look too closely at art.
 
Willie Lumpkin said:
Have you ever looked at a slide under a microscope? You zoom in closer. . . and closer . . . and closer and then . . . SNAP - you break the slide.

In my opinion that's what happens when you look too closely at art.

I recommend you seriously consider the quality of your microscope.

But yeah, let's think that art is like: a ferocious animal, isn't it? It's better to keep a safe distance.

Or: art is so delicate, so feeble. Let's put the warning "don't touch it with your mind", or even: "no thinking allowed".

"Artist working: sorry for the inconvenience".
 
How about this......How about we ALLOW people to have their own idea of what art, theatre, cinema, movie, whatever you want to call it...is....how about we give our opinion of those things and ALLOW others to do so without TELLING them they need to change whatever......the thing about people is we are all different....we all have our likes and dislikes....just because others likes and dislikes are different from yours doesn't mean they need to change anything.......take a look at the others ideas and opinions....YES BY ALL MEANS.....but do they HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR ideas and opinions to fit our own....NO THEY DO NOT....thats the beauty of being different.....I will never grow weary of hearing or reading others ideas and opinions....but I am growing weary of people assuming that one's view is better than another...our view is simply that...."our own"....you agree...you disagree....FINE...we are beginning to push our view as someone who "beats the head of a sinner with their bible"...its no longer "beating a dead horse" it is now becoming a debate into the black hole of debate.....leading absolutely no where....
 
JMAfan said:
How about this......How about we ALLOW people to have their own idea of what art, theatre, cinema, movie, whatever you want to call it...is....how about we give our opinion of those things and ALLOW others to do so without TELLING them they need to change whatever......the thing about people is we are all different....we all have our likes and dislikes....just because others likes and dislikes are different from yours doesn't mean they need to change anything.......take a look at the others ideas and opinions....YES BY ALL MEANS.....but do they HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR ideas and opinions to fit our own....NO THEY DO NOT....thats the beauty of being different.....I will never grow weary of hearing or reading others ideas and opinions....but I am growing weary of people assuming that one's view is better than another...our view is simply that...."our own"....you agree...you disagree....FINE...we are beginning to push our view as someone who "beats the head of a sinner with their bible"...its no longer "beating a dead horse" it is now becoming a debate into the black hole of debate.....leading absolutely no where....


Really, JMAfan,

I don't know what you are talking about. Everyone is allowed to voice their opinions in almost all fashion possible here.

Willie says he prefers to leave art alone; I say I like to think about it. One says he can't understand how to enrich a given experience, another answers; you say everything is opinion, I say no, it is not; Vartha says his favourable opinion, Wilhelm states his thoughts against the movie, etc.

Isn't it free enough?

If people want to say something, so say it. But if one doesn't agree, one must say it too.
 
Mr Sensitive said:
I recommend you seriously consider the quality of your microscope.

But yeah, let's think that art is like: a ferocious animal, isn't it? It's better to keep a safe distance.

Or: art is so delicate, so feeble. Let's put the warning "don't touch it with your mind", or even: "no thinking allowed".

"Artist working: sorry for the inconvenience".


. . . no . . .


Art is visceral. It acts on the emotions. Everyones emotions are different. The nature of art defies technical analysis.
 
Mr Sensitive said:
Really, JMAfan,

I don't know what you are talking about. Everyone is allowed to voice their opinions in almost all fashion possible here.

Willie says he prefers to leave art alone; I say I like to think about it. One says he can't understand how to enrich a given experience, another answers; you say everything is opinion, I say no, it is not; Vartha says his favourable opinion, Wilhelm states his thoughts against the movie, etc.

Isn't it free enough?

If people want to say something, so say it. But if one doesn't agree, one must say it too.

Ok.... Mr. S.....being completely honest and candid with you as I can......

Your bloviating sometimes comes across to me in the same way that Thingy's comment to WS did the other day...."I have more knowledge in my little pinky...."

We don't know what knowledge you have in your little pinky....it may or may not be more than Willie has in his.....but the debate over good or bad cinema has been debated on all sides.....

We GOT IT...... you have superior knowledge of cinema far greater than any of ours.....WE GOT IT! :)

If that comes across as disrespectful to you....I humbly apologize....but my other attempts at getting my thoughts across didn't seem to hit the target well I guess.....hopefully that did, and I won't have to repeat or regurgitate anymore....

What is actually meant.....and the perception I have of the posts....may be completely different....but my perception is my truth at the moment...
 
JMAfan said:
Ok.... Mr. S.....being completely honest and candid with you as I can......

Your bloviating sometimes comes across to me in the same way that Thingy's comment to WS did the other day...."I have more knowledge in my little pinky...."

We don't know what knowledge you have in your little pinky....it may or may not be more than Willie has in his.....but the debate over good or bad cinema has been debated on all sides.....

We GOT IT...... you have superior knowledge of cinema far greater than any of ours.....WE GOT IT! :)

If that comes across as disrespectful to you....I humbly apologize....but my other attempts at getting my thoughts across didn't seem to get where there very well.....hopefully that did, and I won't have to repeat or regurgitate anymore....

What is actually meant.....and the perception I have of the posts....may be completely different....but my perception is my truth at the moment...

Pssssst. Try not to let it bug you so much. When I was 12, I knew everything. I must have forgotten a lot of it along the way, because now I don't know nearly as much as I used to . . . my 13 year old son knows everything now though.

Some people know everything and others don't, but it's all good.;)
 
Willie Lumpkin said:
Pssssst. Try not to let it bug you so much. When I was 12, I knew everything. I must have forgotten a lot of it along the way, because now I don't know nearly as much as I used to . . . my 13 year old son knows everything now though.

Some people know everything and others don't, but it's all good.;)

I know....I know....but I stayed quiet all of last year w/ many people.....I don't plan on staying silent this year....well even though we are actually silent....I mean silent through my typing....:)AND don't get me wrong.....I ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT .... pointing a finger means 3 fingers are pointing back at me....I will ALWAYS keep that in mind...
 
Willie Lumpkin said:
. . . no . . .


Art is visceral. It acts on the emotions. Everyones emotions are different. The nature of art defies technical analysis.

No, it's not visceral. You may like it or not, but artists made it with the brain. Inspiration is 1%, the rest is hard work and knowledge.

If it "defies technical analysis" why do we have so many artists that actually do that? I mean "technical analysis"?

Maybe you think art is a matter of faith, as any other possible religion, but it was created by man, and can be easily understood by man.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"