Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Media (https://www.musicbanter.com/media/)
-   -   What's The Latest Film You Have Seen? (https://www.musicbanter.com/media/26687-whats-latest-film-you-have-seen.html)

storymilo 08-06-2010 04:24 PM

Well all I've seen is Modern Times, but besides having very few words I wouldn't call them similar movies at all.

Though I think I get what you're saying. They manage to evoke emotion without words, which is an impressive thing.

bungalow 08-06-2010 04:29 PM

wall-e himself is pretty heavily based on chaplin's tramp character. the influence is undeniable if you watch, say, city lights. and it's not that it is so impressive per say, as it is unconventional to find in a massively marketed, modern studio film. emotion is/was evoked all the time without the use of words, especially in silent film, but also music/painting/photography etc.

storymilo 08-06-2010 05:12 PM

Well, I'd say a good painting/photograph/silent film/instrumental song that manages to stir some emotion is impressive. Even if it's been done before, it's still a feat.

Violent & Funky 08-06-2010 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberNineDream (Post 914151)
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".

That's also not art's only purpose. We can argue the definition of art all-day but this is Wikipedia's definition:

Quote:

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.
I'm not trying to hang my hat on a wiki definition but merely trying to express that art can be interpreted differently by all individuals. Some, like me, may focus on the visual and captivating qualities of film.

By the way, you guys are pretending like my favorite movie is Transformers or something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberNineDream (Post 914151)
If you can just replace Films, music and books with baseball, than there's something very wrong on the intellectual level (nothing personal).

Eh, you're selling baseball as a hobby short but that doesn't surprise me. I get more intellectually stimulated by a baseball game than most movies, the artsy ones included...

Sodacake 08-06-2010 08:17 PM

Maybe if you weren't saying such stupid crap like a blithering idiot people wouldn't be jumping on you for it. Intellectually stimulated by a baseball game? Jesus christ, you're helpless.

bungalow 08-06-2010 08:37 PM

lol

bungalow 08-06-2010 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent & Funky (Post 914282)

I'm not trying to hang my hat on a wiki definition but merely trying to express that art can be interpreted differently by all individuals. Some, like me, may focus on the visual and captivating qualities of film.

so where does this translate to 60s films being of lower quality? the film stock in the 1960s was the same as it is now. 35mm film is 35mm film. there is no degradation in quality. if all you care about is the improvements in cgi it's you who's making it seem like your favorite movie is transformers.

the films of andrei tarkovsky or teshigahara or antonioni or various other 60s filmmakers are far more visually captivating than anything i've seen recently.

Violent & Funky 08-07-2010 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodacake (Post 914353)
Maybe if you weren't saying such stupid crap like a blithering idiot people wouldn't be jumping on you for it. Intellectually stimulated by a baseball game? Jesus christ, you're helpless.

Fuck you! So much for being open-minded about stuff. Read some of the stuff on this site or this site and tell me that's not intellectually stimulating. Baseball is as much a part of American culture as film is. I guess I shouldn't expect a music forum to understand where I'm coming from.

"The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love." ~ Bryant Gumbel, 1981

Violent & Funky 08-07-2010 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow (Post 914358)
so where does this translate to 60s films being of lower quality? the film stock in the 1960s was the same as it is now. 35mm film is 35mm film. there is no degradation in quality. if all you care about is the improvements in cgi it's you who's making it seem like your favorite movie is transformers.

the films of andrei tarkovsky or teshigahara or antonioni or various other 60s filmmakers are far more visually captivating than anything i've seen recently.

They look old because they're from the 1960s. I mean I don't know what you can't understand about that. Some are in black-and-white, the color is usually grainy looking, everything is just so before my time. I just watched Grindhouse: Death Proof the other night--which is going for that old-school look--and I enjoyed it. Maybe I would like older movies, but from what I've seen I haven't enjoyed them. I don't know what to say...

bungalow 08-07-2010 12:09 AM

okay but those are blogs about baseball. not baseball.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:48 PM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.