Originally posted by brash We tend to forgive films that offer bland characters and paper-thin plots because we are entertained. Why do we settle? There are better action movies, better science fiction films and stories, why do we let Hollywood off the hook? Shouldn't we be demanding more?

Did someone read Moriarity's review of LOtR?

KM

Originally posted by Chuck Originally posted by str8jkt [b][i]foreign intellectual film. aka: Sleeping Aid

Quick question for both of you: Do you consider all foreign films boring?

KM

Nope, and thats why I posted that disclaimer afterwards. My entire reason for posting is to say that there is exceptions to the rules and that peoples tastes differ a lot. I don't like the people saying "I won't see that because its all f/x and no content, or because its a box office hit, etc.. I am open to all movies and will try watching anything. Seen my share of foreign, indie, high budget, low-budget, etc films. I have liked movies from all of those genres. I have also found though that I tend to dislike more of them from that genre because although they may be intellectually stimulating, they also might not be as fun to watch.

Originally posted by Astrakan Did someone read Moriarity's review of LOtR? KM

Yes, but I have had this rant for years.

Originally posted by Astrakan Quick question for both of you: Do you consider all foreign films boring? KM

Not all of them. I liked Stargate

I cant make that generalization, however as I sit here, I cant think of one that I thought was "great".

5 minute pause

I just took a look through my collection I own. Out of almost 400 DVD's, I own two foreign films:
Run Lola Run -- which i didnt particularily think was that great
Crouching Tiger... -- It was okay, however again, I can think of hundreds of movies i prefer over it.

I also own a few Anime DVD's (if you consider them foreign films) and although I did really enjoy Ninja Scroll and Princess Mononoke, i did not like Record of Loddoss War, Perfect Blue or Ghost in the Machine.

Originally posted by brash Okay, saying "these films" was a little too broad. The impact of a film which is heavy on visuals and light on plot is limited to the duration of the film. Once you walk out the door, you leave the movie behind. Swordfish was fun to watch, but there really isn't a lot to say about it after it was over. Fight Club, by contrast had myself and friends discussing it for weeks afterwards, now, long after its original release its still a movie which can spark interesting conversation among friends.

I cannot remember discussing any movies with my friends since high school, but that's just me. The only things that came up in conversations were funny quotes from comedies we all loved, e.g. "You fargin bastige!" or "I have the gub!". Occasionally, non-comedies get quoted as well, e.g. when you are looking for the bottle, you can ask "Who's got the force?" to which the reply "The force is with me[, always]" is perfect.

I would still place Die Hard well ahead of many of its imitators with better effects because Die Hard had the stronger story and characters. The real strength of the movie was the character of John Mclean, you could identify with him, and so every fight, explosion and injury has a greater impact.

The first thing that comes to my mind is always Alan Rickman's performance when "Die Hard" is mentioned.

I suppose its kind of like saying ice cream is the best food in the world... it might taste great, but you can't live on ice cream alone.

I agree, but I refuse to live without ice cream, just because many people like it. I am not going to eat spinach just because it's 'good for me' (it isn't). I am not going to eat sheep eye balls just because a small group of people think that it's a gourmet meal.

Originally posted by vangleason I think he elaborated rather well. And succinctly. My own succinct comment on this point is this: Velvet paintings are entertaining. The Mona Lisa is art. Granted, I love both. But if I had to take one over the other to a desert island, it would definitely have to be the latter.

In other words, if something is entertaining, it cannot be art, right?

I am glad we have you here in the bowl; the only person on earth who can unquestionably determine and tell us exactly what is art and what isn't.

Originally posted by vangleason Fun is fine, but like a ride in an amusement park, it does not last. It's ephemeral.

Yes, it does. I spoke to several people who remembered many rides. I clearly remember some of the rides that were special for one reason or another. Mostly because it was a great ride.

I would love to hear what experience is and isn't ephemeral. Please educate me. Let's see a couple of examples. True or false?

1. Watching "Lord of the Dance" is ephemeral (because it's popular), but watching the Bolshoi Ballet perform isn't (because it's 'art').

2. Reading a funny book or limerick is ephemeral (because it's fun), but reading Chaucer isn't (because it's difficult to read, therefore it's 'art').

Kind of like a nice tub of buttered popcorn - it's nice while it lasts, but at the end of the day, you crap it out and flush it down the toilet.

As opposed to what food, exactly?

Would you not prefer to experience works which challenge you, haunt you and essentially stay with you until the day you die? Or do you really just want to flush it all down the toilet?

Again, you claim to be the authority on what is memorable for a person and what isn't.

Originally posted by CigarsAndPars I cannot remember discussing any movies with my friends since high school, but that's just me. The only things that came up in conversations were funny quotes from comedies we all loved, e.g. "You fargin bastige!" or "I have the gub!". Occasionally, non-comedies get quoted as well, e.g. when you are looking for the bottle, you can ask "Who's got the force?" to which the reply "The force is with me[, always]" is perfect.

So in other words, it is things like dialogue you remember, not the visuals.

The first thing that comes to my mind is always Alan Rickman's performance when "Die Hard" is mentioned.

So characterization is important and memorable, too.

I agree, but I refuse to live without ice cream, just because many people like it. I am not going to eat spinach just because it's 'good for me' (it isn't). I am not going to eat sheep eye balls just because a small group of people think that it's a gourmet meal.

I think you are misunderstanding me, I'm not saying you shouldn't eat ice cream, bet even though ice cream alone tastes good, I don't think anyone over the age of 15 would call it good food. Or if we compare special effects to ice cream, plain ice cream is fine, but ice cream on a slice of hot apple pie is amazing.

You said earlier in this thread:

Partly. Fact is, great sound, picture and CGI add a lot to the entertainment value and generally speaking, today's filmmakers are (or should be) more knowledgeable, thanks to the older movies. It's called evolution. Many older movies deserve the praise for their originality and should be remembered and taught in film schools. However, that, in itself, does not mean that they will remain fresh and hold the test of time forever. Not only that, but 'important' movies could be boring and painful to watch, too (see Jean-Luc Godard).

My argument is and continues to be that storytelling and character are more important than sound, picture and special effects. You remember story, you remember dialogue and you remember characters. The visual and aural experience is ephemeral, its those situations, dialogue and characterizations that stay with you long after the lights go up.

I interpret your comments above as saying that movies are better today. I don't agree, but I wouldn't try and argue that the film of any particular past decade are better either. We only remember the films worth remembering. I am sure that if you went back over the history of film you would find many "entertaining" films which are now forgotten.

Back to CGI, if anything it probably makes some effects worse. Think about the planning and dynamics that you get when the filmmaker is filming a car chase scene and only has limited time, film and cars with which to film that sequence, with CGI that spontaneity and creativity is gone since everything can be run through a computer over and over until it is "perfect". I can think of a few great scenes which would never have been realized had they been scripted or had current effects been available. Robert Rodrigues filmed El Mariachi for a measly $7,000. He compensated for his lack of funds by being creative in setting up his shots and planning his action scenes. Its that sort of creativity which gives us great films, and no amount of money, special effects or attempts at formula filmmaking can replace it.

Originally posted by brash So in other words, it is things like dialogue you remember, not the visuals.

Negative (see below).

So characterization is important and memorable, too.

I never said anything to the contrary, did I?

I think you are misunderstanding me, I'm not saying you shouldn't eat ice cream, bet even though ice cream alone tastes good, I don't think anyone over the age of 15 would call it good food. Or if we compare special effects to ice cream, plain ice cream is fine, but ice cream on a slice of hot apple pie is amazing.

I understand your view, which is not too far from mine. I only place considerably more emphasis and appreciate more the positive effects of the visual and audio.

My argument is and continues to be that storytelling and character are more important than sound, picture and special effects. You remember story, you remember dialogue and you remember characters. The visual and aural experience is ephemeral, its those situations, dialogue and characterizations that stay with you long after the lights go up.

What I wrote was that I generally do not discuss movies with my friends. Quite frankly, I don't see the benefit of discussing a movie beyond a certain point (the discussion won't take more than 5 minutes, for sure). The fact that some quotes come up in conversations does not mean that we will discuss the movie for a second.

The story, dialogue, characters you mention are most important when you read a book. I am not saying that these are not important, no way. However, while not saying that fancy visuals are necessary or even preferable for every movie, they play a very important part and can make a movie watchable or even memorable. Fact is, the visuals usually stay with me considerably longer than quotes. Of course, a visual effect need not be a million dollar shot to be effective.

In "Jesus Christ Superstar", when the choir sings "Hosanna", they sing 'Hey J.C., J.C., would you die for me?' and the picture freezes for a second, capturing the expression on Ted Neeley's face. IMO, this is the finest moment on film. My spine tingles just thinking about it. There is no way anyone can describe that in a book or in any other way.

A couple of scenes from "Contact" I will not forget: the initial sequence and when Ellie goes up the stairs and opens the medicine cabinet. The small girl wearing a red coat in "Schindler's List". The 'far out' sequence in "2001". The plasma destorying some spaceships in "Starship Troopers". The scene with the ice crystals in space in "Titan A.E.". The Pod Race in "The Phantom Menace". Even the cheesy disappearance of the characters in "Liquid Sky" is memorable for some weird reason.

The list goes on and on. If we don't need the visuals, why bother watching a movie? We could read the book or listen to a 'talking book' instead. A movie doesn't have to be 'good' to produce memorable visuals. Ephemeral? I think not.

Finally, it seems to me that you underestimate the positive effects of being entertained. Sometimes, after a long day working like crazy, totally mindless entertainment is what I crave for and it proved to be a very effective and enjoyable way to clear my mind and help me relax.

Originally posted by brash My argument is and continues to be that storytelling and character are more important than sound, picture and special effects. You remember story, you remember dialogue and you remember characters. The visual and aural experience is ephemeral, its those situations, dialogue and characterizations that stay with you long after the lights go up. I interpret your comments above as saying that movies are better today. I don't agree, but I wouldn't try and argue that the film of any particular past decade are better either. We only remember the films worth remembering. I am sure that if you went back over the history of film you would find many "entertaining" films which are now forgotten.

I was going to post some thoughts, but Brash said better than I could.

Some movies I forget after a couple weeks, others I remember for a long time. For example, Rush Hour vs Fight Club. Rush Hour was a good movie and I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I can't remember many specific scenes...

Originally posted by CigarsAndPars The story, dialogue, characters you mention are most important when you read a book. I am not saying that these are not important, no way. However, while not saying that fancy visuals are necessary or even preferable for every movie, they play a very important part and can make a movie watchable or even memorable. Fact is, the visuals usually stay with me considerably longer than quotes. Of course, a visual effect need not be a million dollar shot to be effective.

I'm not even sure we are disagreeing anymore.

In "Jesus Christ Superstar", when the choir sings "Hosanna", they sing 'Hey J.C., J.C., would you die for me?' and the picture freezes for a second, capturing the expression on Ted Neeley's face. IMO, this is the finest moment on film. My spine tingles just thinking about it. There is no way anyone can describe that in a book or in any other way.

But that picture's power derives from it place in the film. The music and the emotional weight combine with that visual to give it impact. You care about the character, and that is why that scene is so powerful.

A couple of scenes from "Contact" I will not forget: the initial sequence and when Ellie goes up the stairs and opens the medicine cabinet. The small girl wearing a red coat in "Schindler's List". The 'far out' sequence in "2001". The plasma destorying some spaceships in "Starship Troopers". The scene with the ice crystals in space in "Titan A.E.". The Pod Race in "The Phantom Menace". Even the cheesy disappearance of the characters in "Liquid Sky" is memorable for some weird reason. The list goes on and on. If we don't need the visuals, why bother watching a movie? We could read the book or listen to a 'talking book' instead. A movie doesn't have to be 'good' to produce memorable visuals. Ephemeral? I think not.

Again, I'm not sure that we are disagreeing. I never said we didn't need the visuals. That's what a movie is. My argument is that by themselves, visual effects (because its advances in visual effects that we are discussing) do not make a good film.

The story doesn't have to be War and Peace, but if there's no plot and little or no character development then the movie will be weak regardless of how much money is thrown at the screen. Visual effects work best when you care about what they are showing.

Finally, it seems to me that you underestimate the positive effects of being entertained. Sometimes, after a long day working like crazy, totally mindless entertainment is what I crave for and it proved to be a very effective and enjoyable way to clear my mind and help me relax.

Not at all, I love being entertained. In fact a movie has to be pretty bad for me to hate it, but just because I laughed a lot watching "Dude, Where's My Car" and enjoyed the effects of "Swordfish", doesn't qualify either as "good" movies in my opinion.

Brash

Just wanted you to know that I am enjoying this debate. I don't really think film can easily be defined in absolute terms such as good or bad, I mean someone has to think every film is good, even if it is only the director's mother

Originally posted by brash I mean someone has to think every film is good, even if it is only the director's mother

You obviously have not seen Bikini Hotel yet ! If I was a mother, I would slap my child silly for associating my family name with that "film"

Did I mention that I still have it for trade !

Originally posted by Chuck Did I mention that I still have it for trade !

I didn't see that one listed on your website for trade chuck!