Isn't it a sad indictment of the film world in general that these sort of films are increasingly what are expected/funded/thronged over in the media, at the loss of real cinematic ventures?
Originally posted by Starrman Isn't it a sad indictment of the film world in general that these sort of films are increasingly what are expected/funded/thronged over in the media, at the loss of real cinematic ventures?
I don't understand. Why is this not a "real" cinematic venture and why do more artistic expressions of cinema suffer from this?
Originally posted by Palynka I don't understand. Why is this not a "real" cinematic venture and why do more artistic expressions of cinema suffer from this?
I'm pretty sure you do understand what I intended, as usual you're forcing me to be overly specific, presumably because you get kicks out of being a pedant and/or trying to wind me up. Let me re-clarify. By 'real' I mean films made for majority reasons other than massive budget CGI technical showcases. My apologies for being lazy.
More artistic expressions of cinema suffer because they do not receive the publicity, funding, production budget. This means that a much smaller percentage of the public even hear about these films, let alone whether they get the chance to see them. As it stands there is a climate in cinema where the public are more exposed to big budget CGI wonders than other film types and it seems to me that, in the words of the Jam, the public wants what the public gets. If you don't know what other films are out there, how can you know to what extent your tastes go?
Originally posted by Starrman I'm pretty sure you do understand what I intended, as usual you're forcing me to be overly specific, presumably because you get kicks out of being a pedant and/or trying to wind me up. Let me re-clarify. By 'real' I mean films made for majority reasons other than massive budget CGI technical showcases. My apologies for being lazy.
More artistic expr ...[text shortened]... don't know what other films are out there, how can you know to what extent your tastes go?
It's easy to find other film types, but many people just don't like more artistic cinema. Why can't you accept that? It's not that they don't know the extent of their tastes, is that they really don't care about such types of film. Give them a ticket for free and they will walk out. They will.
And so what? Do you really expect that big money would help art films? I don't. So live and let live.
Originally posted by Palynka It's easy to find other film types, but many people just don't like more artistic cinema. Why can't you accept that? It's not that they don't know the extent of their tastes, is that they really don't care about such types of film. Give them a ticket for free and they will walk out. They will.
And so what? Do you really expect that big money would help art films? I don't. So live and let live.
The only way I can see more money not being of use to less CGI intensive films is if you assume that an increase in publicity and production budgets would not ultimately mean more people are likely to go and see them. Since you seem to believe that this is what would happen, then we'll stay opposed. The way I see it, the majority of people like what they are encouraged to like from the moment they become aware of the advertising around them and it is hard to break this mould. More money means higher profile actors, more CGI, more advertising/marketing, and ultimately more people with awareness of your film.
Originally posted by Starrman The only way I can see more money not being of use to less CGI intensive films is if you assume that an increase in publicity and production budgets would not ultimately mean more people are likely to go and see them.
Yes, but those are not art films. Big money means big investors which means big returns or else. This means that big money will always push films away from art and into entertainment because more people like the latter. So let money flow into entertainment and embrace a separation.
I don't see how any amount of advertising can make a Manoel de Oliveira film palatable to the masses. It just won't be.
Originally posted by Palynka Yes, but those are not art films. Big money means big investors which means big returns or else. This means that big money will always push films away from art and into entertainment because more people like the latter. So let money flow into entertainment and embrace a separation.
I don't see how any amount of advertising can make a Manoel de Oliveira film palatable to the masses. It just won't be.
The essence of this discussion is to what degree you think marketing pressure informs the development of taste. I believe that in the modern world it does so massively enough from the moment you begin to form tastes that it shapes those tastes to it's mould. At the risk of sounding alarmist, art will increasingly die out to be replaced by closed market prescription.
In the field I work in, there is some instance of compromise for budget or popular appeal on a daily basis. As a freelancer I take jobs I'd rather turn down because I need the money, and lend my hand to making things which are purely aimed at making money, not at making art. I guess I just don't believe, if left to their own devices from day one, that people would choose big-bucks over art, and that they do so now because those tastes have been moulded by advertising and market control.
Originally posted by Starrman The essence of this discussion is to what degree you think marketing pressure informs the development of taste. I believe that in the modern world it does so massively enough from the moment you begin to form tastes that it shapes those tastes to it's mould. At the risk of sounding alarmist, art will increasingly die out to be replaced by closed market pr that they do so now because those tastes have been moulded by advertising and market control.
It seems to me that non-monumental art has been on the fringe long before marketing ever existed.
I also don't see any danger of it "dying out". There are more independent releases today than ever before. Developments in technology have made it easier and easier for an average person to be able to have some end product and the boom in shorts is a clear testament to this. I'm much less pessimistic. Instead of Christians and lions, we have Avatar. And it's incomparably better than 2010 or Independence Day or many other blockbusters, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Palynka It seems to me that non-monumental art has been on the fringe long before marketing ever existed.
I also don't see any danger of it "dying out". There are more independent releases today than ever before. Developments in technology have made it easier and easier for an average person to be able to have some end product and the boom in shorts is a clear t ...[text shortened]... ncomparably better than 2010 or Independence Day or many other blockbusters, in my opinion.
That says more about the availability of equipment and software than it does any support for their making.
I guess I just don't see any difference at all between Independence Day and Avatar save the CGI budget.
Originally posted by Starrman In the field I work in, there is some instance of compromise for budget or popular appeal on a daily basis. As a freelancer I take jobs I'd rather turn down because I need the money, and lend my hand to making things which are purely aimed at making money, not at making art. I guess I just don't believe, if left to their own devices from day one, that peo ...[text shortened]... that they do so now because those tastes have been moulded by advertising and market control.
Originally posted by Starrman I guess I just don't see any difference at all between Independence Day and Avatar save the CGI budget.
You don't want to see any difference. The character development is incomparably better in Avatar, the pacing is much better, the story does not revolve around the CGI but the opposite, there is no Will Smith, etc., etc.
Originally posted by Palynka You don't want to see any difference. The character development is incomparably better in Avatar, the pacing is much better, the story does not revolve around the CGI but the opposite, there is no Will Smith, etc., etc.
I honestly found the character development in Avatar to be horrendously bland, and whilst it's been a long time since I saw ID, I remember the same lacklustre feelings. I'll admit that, thankfully, there was no Jeff Goldblum gesturing madly around. I'd say the story revolves around the CGI in exactly the same way it does in ID, how do you see it as different?
Originally posted by Starrman I honestly found the character development in Avatar to be horrendously bland, and whilst it's been a long time since I saw ID, I remember the same lacklustre feelings. I'll admit that, thankfully, there was no Jeff Goldblum gesturing madly around. I'd say the story revolves around the CGI in exactly the same way it does in ID, how do you see it as different?
Meh, it's not worth it. We're not going to agree on details.
I'll just that the whole of ID was just an excuse for that scene with the building being blown up. It's all anybody remembers from that film. There is no such scene in Avatar. The CGI was not meant to make you go "Wow!" during a few key scenes. It's ever-present and so serves the story.
30 Dec '09 14:13
Avatar
Back to Top