What's The Latest Film You Have Seen?

08-05-2010, 10:25 PM

and there have not been any major technological advancements in film since the 60s anyway. nothing that has affected the quality of the image anyway--except digital video, which is shittier. i don't see where you are informed to talk about the "low-quality-ness" of older films (the 60s isn't even that fucking old) given you admittedly haven't watched many.

Violent & Funky · 08-06-2010, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

when your reasons for not wanting to are fucking stupid why shouldn't she call you out? this is a public forum, don't post if you don't want the things you say criticized.

What, that they're boring? How can you possible argue that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

and there have not been any major technological advancements in film since the 60s anyway. nothing that has affected the quality of the image anyway--except digital video, which is shittier. i don't see where you are informed to talk about the "low-quality-ness" of older films (the 60s isn't even that fucking old) given you admittedly haven't watched many.

Haha maybe you don't find CGI to be an improvement but I challenge you to watch Congo and then Jurassic Park back-to-back and tell me they shouldn't have employed a little more CGI in the former...

08-06-2010, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent & Funky

What, that they're boring? How can you possible argue that?

boring is the absolute lamest criticism you can give a film. you get from a film what you put into it, if you engage a film and watch it actively rather than passively it will not bore you. if it does that is your fault, generally. i'll leave room for empire as an exception.

Quote:

Haha maybe you don't find CGI to be an improvement but I challenge you to watch Congo and then Jurassic Park back-to-back and tell me they shouldn't have employed a little more CGI in the former...

i don't find cgi to be an improvement particularly. or at least i don't watch many films that extensively use cgi, so i don't find it missing in older films. but certainly lack of cgi forced older films and directors to be more creative.

debaserr · 08-05-2010, 11:27 PM

passable. it had some spellbinding moments and also much of the opposite. glad i saw it, but it is far from a favorite.

08-05-2010, 11:30 PM

yeah you should have gone with let the right one in from your list

08-06-2010, 12:21 AM

what do you mean by low-quality? as in the film artists of the 1960s created work that was of a lower artistic quality? or are you talking about the actual recording of the image...like the image is of a lower quality?

Violent & Funky · 08-06-2010, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

what do you mean by low-quality? as in the film artists of the 1960s created work that was of a lower artistic quality? or are you talking about the actual recording of the image...like the image is of a lower quality?

Entertainment quality, since that's what I go for in a movie. In my book it's to entertain me, so it's competing against things like a baseball game or video games and not so much paintings or music...

08-06-2010, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent & Funky

Entertainment quality, since that's what I go for in a movie. In my book it's to entertain me, so it's competing against things like a baseball game or video games and not so much paintings or music...

well film is an art-form just like music is, and popular films bastardize the medium in the same way popular music does generally. if you can appreciate talented music and musicians why would you not also appreciate talented filmmakers?

Violent & Funky · 08-06-2010, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

well film is an art-form just like music is, and popular films bastardize the medium in the same way popular music does generally. if you can appreciate talented music and musicians why would you not also appreciate talented filmmakers?

I like plenty of popular music. My music tastes are very similar to my movie tastes: I generally like mainstream movies/music that still maintains some artistic credibility. For example, take the Red Hot Chili Peppers or Saving Private Ryan...

NumberNineDream · 08-06-2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent & Funky

Entertainment quality, since that's what I go for in a movie. In my book it's to entertain me, so it's competing against things like a baseball game or video games and not so much paintings or music...

Just like Bungalow said, it is a form of Art that is made to challenge the mind, the psyche and your life's philosophy. If you're too lazy to think during films, don't expect movie lovers to just enjoy films with no content, or just for the "incredible visual experience".

If you can just replace Films, music and books with baseball, than there's something very wrong on the intellectual level (nothing personal).

08-05-2010, 10:25 PM	#1 (permalink)
bungalow Guest Posts: n/a	and there have not been any major technological advancements in film since the 60s anyway. nothing that has affected the quality of the image anyway--except digital video, which is shittier. i don't see where you are informed to talk about the "low-quality-ness" of older films (the 60s isn't even that fucking old) given you admittedly haven't watched many. Last edited by bungalow; 08-05-2010 at 10:30 PM.

08-05-2010, 11:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
debaserr eat the masters Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,470	passable. it had some spellbinding moments and also much of the opposite. glad i saw it, but it is far from a favorite. __________________ Last.FM

08-05-2010, 11:30 PM	#5 (permalink)
bungalow Guest Posts: n/a	yeah you should have gone with let the right one in from your list

08-06-2010, 12:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
bungalow Guest Posts: n/a	what do you mean by low-quality? as in the film artists of the 1960s created work that was of a lower artistic quality? or are you talking about the actual recording of the image...like the image is of a lower quality?