Will movies ever become obsolete?

[Beale the Rippe]

This is one of my greatest fears. Will movies ever be replaced? Will they ever become obsolete? Will they be forgotten?

Look what happened to Radio.

I'm not exactly sure how this would come to be, maybe virtual reality simulation, or memory drugs (See the wonderful movie Strange Days for more on this), or maybe the general public would just loose interest.

Wouldn't that be horrible? Any thoughts?


Ok then. I'll go take my medication now.

[jrs]

Originally posted by Beale the Rippe
Will movies ever be replaced? Will they ever become obsolete? Will they be forgotten?


no.

[Beale the Rippe]

Ok then. Thanks jrs, I feel a lot better now.

[r3port3r66]

Although I think movies as art will not become obsolete, the format in which they appear might. WIth the advancements of digital photography and projection, the way in which we see them could become a thing of the past. But since that is niether the theme of this thread, nor your intended discussion route, I'll agree with jrs, no.

[Django]

Well, books are not exactly obsolete, and neither is radio.

I imagine that some day, movies might not exactly be the rage, but I doubt they will become obsolete--not unless the cost of film production way outweighs the dividends--i.e. commercial reasons. But with the technological advances we have been seeing in film production--digital animation and photography, most notably--I doubt that film will become obsolete.

However, what might happen someday (and I think this will be a good thing) is that perhaps film-making will no longer be as commercially motivated as it is today and then we might finally see some really high quality films in the market. That would be a day worth waiting for!

Incidentally, doesn't this thread belong in the "General Movie Discussion" section?

[Beale the Rippe]

No.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Beale the Rippe
This is one of my greatest fears. Will movies ever be replaced? Will they ever become obsolete? Will they be forgotten?

Film will never be forgotten. Films will always be made so that fear is totally unnecessary. Stop it right now, I say!!!

Look what happened to Radio.

What did happen to radio?? People listen to it everyday. I grew up in a home where the radio was always on.

I'm not exactly sure how this would come to be, maybe virtual reality simulation, or memory drugs (See the wonderful movie Strange Days for more on this), or maybe the general public would just loose interest.

Wouldn't that be horrible? Any thoughts?

I think that the movies disappearing is the last thing we have to worry about. What is really alarming is that people don't read newspapers anymore.

When tv came everybody thought that the movies were finished, and the industry did suffer a setback. But it survived and even if it has never topped the record-holding year 1947 (I think it is) the industry stands strong and extremely powerful.

[Django]

Originally posted by Beale the Rippe
No.
Yes.

[Django]

Originally posted by Piddzilla

What is really alarming is that people don't read newspapers anymore.
Well, most people get their news from the internet anyway, which is a much more effective news dissemination source than the newspaper. I imagine that newspapers will become obsolete quite soon, when internet access becomes truly universal and as widespread as the telephone. We can already use cell phones to browse the internet, so the day may not be too far distant when most people will simply flip open their cell phones to read the news headlines of the moment, from one of several competing online news sources. That would be the true information age, I'd say!

Originally posted by Piddzilla

the [movie] industry stands strong and extremely powerful.
And that, to me, is a scary thought! :eek:

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Django
However, what might happen someday (and I think this will be a good thing) is that perhaps film-making will no longer be as commercially motivated as it is today and then we might finally see some really high quality films in the market. That would be a day worth waiting for!
I think you've got it completely backwards. Removing commercial incentive will ensure LESS, not more, in the way of entertaining cinema. Insinuating that removing money from the picture will result in some sort of happy communistic film society where people are driven to excel out of pure movie altruism strikes me as borderline delusional.

Originally posted by Django
And that, to me, is a scary thought! :eek:
Why?

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Django

Well, most people get their news from the internet anyway, which is a much more effective news dissemination source than the newspaper. I imagine that newspapers will become obsolete quite soon, when internet access becomes truly universal and as widespread as the telephone. We can already use cell phones to browse the internet, so the day may not be too far distant when most people will simply flip open their cell phones to read the news headlines of the moment, from one of several competing online news sources. That would be the true information age, I'd say!


And this is supposed to be a good thing?? Internet sources is very unreliable and the biggest tool for spreading disinformation. Compared to television, who was considered to be the devil for long, you can via Internet spread the most unbelievable lies and more or less turn them into facts in no time. The news spread on Internet are not filtered and are put on there often without any editor checking it. The thing is - it's stuck there forever perhaps. If you read something in an old newspaper you probably dismiss it just because it is old. But when you read something on the Net you probably won't bother to check when the information was actually published - and who the publisher is.

And if people don't bother with newspapers and serious news programs on tv, why do you think they would bother if they read it on Internet? One big problem is that they wouldn't read it on the Internet if they didn't look for it. The passivity of people is scary...

[Django]

Originally posted by Yoda

I think you've got it completely backwards. Removing commercial incentive will ensure LESS, not more, in the way of entertaining cinema. Insinuating that removing money from the picture will result in some sort of happy communistic film society where people are driven to excel out of pure movie altruism strikes me as borderline delusional.
First of all, I said "high quality cinema." Secondly, if you attribute quality in cinema to commercial motivation, it is you who must have to be borderline delusional! What I am saying has nothing to do with a communistic ideal, but, rather, with the everyday facts associated with the commercial realities of the industry. Film-makers prioritize saleability over quality, as the result of which several potentially high quality projects are sidelined and you see pure garbage on the screen because of its market value. In a film industry in which the commercial motive is not primary, we stand to see many more quality productions--e.g. independent cinema, art cinema, etc.--the kind you see at Cannes or the Sundance Film Festival, etc.--in the mainstream.

Chris/Yoda, if you seriously equate commercialism with quality, I fear for your soul! :eek: You cannot be serious--not unless you haven't been exposed to genuine quality cinema! It's kind of like the difference between junk food (purely commercial motivation) and home cooking or food at a really high-class restaurant, in which quality is paramount.

Originally posted by Yoda

Why?
Well, it tells me that our society is so completely hypnotized by a medium of expression that is primarily driven by the profit motive and thrives on sensationalistic fiction. That is a scary thought!

Originally posted by Piddzilla


And this is supposed to be a good thing?? Internet sources is very unreliable and the biggest tool for spreading disinformation. Compared to television, who was considered to be the devil for long, you can via Internet spread the most unbelievable lies and more or less turn them into facts in no time. The news spread on Internet are not filtered and are put on there often without any editor checking it. The thing is - it's stuck there forever perhaps. If you read something in an old newspaper you probably dismiss it just because it is old. But when you read something on the Net you probably won't bother to check w
hen the information was actually published - and who the publisher is.

And if people don't bother with newspapers and serious news programs on tv, why do you think they would bother if they read it on Internet? One big problem is that they wouldn't read it on the Internet if they didn't look for it. The passivity of people is scary...
Well, whether you read it in a newspaper or on the internet, you still have to read it! I don't see how you can call the medium "passive"--at least not in the same sense as you might call watching news on TV passive. The internet is simply a medium of publication--digitally rather than on print, which is eco-friendly, because it saves the trees, and also extremely useful when it comes to research, because you don't have to worry about leafing through thousands of paper pages, rendering information extremely accessible to boot! Secondly, the ease with which information can be published allows new voices to be heard--voices that may have been silenced in the "paper age". With the internet, we stand to get much closer to the sources of the information as opposed to relying on an institutional version--we are no longer dependent on the "official version" because we can get to the source of the information much more readily. On the other hand, however, there is the possibility of false information being propagated, but, over time, this problem can be addressed and false information can be removed. Incidentally, you said that once information is published on the internet, it can never be removed or altered. This is untrue, because if the server that hosts the information is shut down, it is no longer available on the internet, so I don't see how you can make such a claim. Ultimately, though, people invariably turn to reliable news sources, even on the internet. The difference is that you can read the latest headlines of the New York Times every morning online for free as opposed to walking down the street to the newstand and shelling out 50 cents for a copy, only to read, e.g., the headlines on the front page, but having to buy the rest of the paper as well. Furthermore, you can check out the headlines on cnn.com, msnbc.com, the online Washington Post, the online San Francisco Chronicle and a host of other papers at the same time, again without spending a dime, and reading the latest news and only bothering about the stuff you want or the info you need. How this can possibly qualify as a bad thing, I don't know! What is more, you don't have to rely on the "official source" but, very often, you can corroborate their claims by going directly to the source of the information. And, on top of it all, thanks to forums, email, etc., you can make your voice heard regarding important issues in an immediate, dynamic fashion (case in point, MoFo).

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Django
What I am saying has nothing to do with a communistic ideal, but, rather, with the everyday facts associated with the commercial realities of the industry. Film-makers prioritize saleability over quality, as the result of which several potentially high quality projects are sidelined and you see pure garbage on the screen because of its market value.
Saleability and quality are bedfellows, not opponents. If it is true that the movie industry cares about nothing other than profit, then surely they are doing no more or less than giving most people precisely what they want. Consequently, the above quote is really a roundabout way of saying "I don't like what most other people like."

Furthermore, seeing as how you've (erroneously) stated in the past that the market is demand-driven, you're contradicting yourself by placing any blame on those selling today's films. If what you say about economics is true (which it isn't, as even a slight cross-examination shows), then today's movies are simply a reflection of today's consumers.


Originally posted by Django
Chris/Yoda, if you seriously equate commercialism with quality, I fear for your soul! :eek:
Right. You fear for my soul, know better than the US Department of Labor, and believe a lack of journalistic integrity threatens the fabric of the space-time continuum.

Get a grip.


Originally posted by Django
You cannot be serious--not unless you haven't been exposed to genuine quality cinema! It's kind of like the difference between junk food (purely commercial motivation) and home cooking or food at a really high-class restaurant, in which quality is paramount.
High-class restaurants cost a great deal of money, Bubba. Show me a soup kitchen that could ever meet the same standards of cuisine as the Bella Donna and we'll talk.


Originally posted by Django
Well, it tells me that our society is so completely hypnotized by a medium of expression that is primarily driven by the profit motive and thrives on sensationalistic fiction. That is a scary thought!
You've said nothing new. You've merely repeated that the thought scares you. I don't see why it should be even remotely "frightening" that the majority of Americans prefer sensational, event and concept-driven stories to slower, character-drive ones.

[Django]

Originally posted by Yoda

Saleability and quality are bedfellows, not opponents. If it is true that the movie industry cares about nothing other than profit, then surely they are doing no more or less than giving most people precisely what they want. Consequently, the above quote is really a roundabout way of saying "I don't like what most other people like."
"Saleability and quality are bedfellows, not opponents"--that may be true in some cases, but not usually. There are other factors such as economics, convenience, logistics, etc. For example, go to McDonalds or Burger King and eat a hamburger. Then go to the supermarket and buy some hamburger meat, some buns, lettuce, tomato, onions, etc. Then go home and take out the barbecue and make some hamburger for yourself. Also, while you're at it, grind some tomato and make your own ketchup, and some mustard seed to make your own mustard, and make some mayo while you're at it. Then put it all together and eat your own home-made hamburger. Even if you are a mediocre cook, I guarantee you that your home-made hamburger will taste a heck of a lot better. Why, then, doesn't McDonalds or Burger King sell hamburgers like that? Well, for one thing, it comes down to mass production. McD and BK produce burgers for mass consumption by the millions. Hence, they take all sorts of shortcuts to facilitate burger production--shortcuts that compromise on the quality of the burger and facilitate the saleability, by, for example, cutting the overheads, facilitating mass production, etc. Thus, you see, quality and saleability are not necessarily bedfellows at all. The same principle applies to pretty much anything. If you look at the major commercial successes in mainstream cinema, with a few exceptions, you don't see classic material that compares with classics in other mediums (e.g. literature, music, theater, etc.) Rather, you see trash produced on a mass scale for mass consumption. Also, you see the phenomenon of sequels and multi-part sagas, etc., which is even more shameless, because it consists of rehashed trash and the exploitation of the commercial success of the first part. Of course, there are always exceptions, case in point, Indiana Jones I, II and III and soon, hopefully, IV. But, on the whole, it is valid, esp. in the case of horror movies like Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street, which take this principle to the extreme. Also, you see the perpetuation of gratuitous violence, sex and sensationalism in film, again, from standpoint of pure commercial exploitation. So, I honestly do not see how you can possibly make the claim that commercialism in any way encourages quality in cinema!

Originally posted by Yoda

Furthermore, seeing as how you've (erroneously) stated in the past that the market is demand-driven, you're contradicting yourself by placing any blame on those selling today's films. If what you say about economics is true (which it isn't, as even a slight cross-examination shows), then today's movies are simply a reflection of today's consumers.
Well, the fact that the market is demand-driven means that, a) the masses are suckers for trash (esp. with a good measure of violence, sex and sensationalism) and b) the producers are eager to exploit the popular tastes to make a quick buck. So both parties are equally to blame.

Originally posted by Yoda

Right. You fear for my soul, know better than the US Department of Labor, and believe a lack of journalistic integrity threatens the fabric of the space-time continuum.

Get a grip.
No, you get a grip! You have totally distorted everything I have said and taken it all way out of context! And when did I ever mention the space-time continuum in any of my posts, I'd like to know? Talk about "journalistic distortion"! Chris, you get the Pulitzer No-Prize for extreme journalistic bias and distortion of the facts! Congratulations! :laugh:

Originally posted by Yoda

High-class restaurants cost a great deal of money, Bubba. Show me a soup kitchen that could ever meet the same standards of cuisine as the Bella Donna and we'll talk.
And the reason they do is because the kind of food they offer is not commercially viable when it comes to mass production. For the same reason, again, that quality theater, opera, symphony music, etc. also costs a great deal of money compared to cinema--because they are not commercially viable from the context of mass production. Which is a pity because only a few people--those who can afford it--are exposed to it. Lack of commercial viability drives up the prices.

Originally posted by Yoda

You've said nothing new. You've merely repeated that the thought scares you. I don't see why it should be even remotely "frightening" that the majority of Americans prefer sensational, event and concept-driven stories to slower, character-drive ones.
Well, sensationalism implies a distortion of reality. Movies that thrive on sensationalism and excessively fast-paced action completely distort reality. You might get a great adrenaline rush from watching an ultra-violent action movie, but the reality is that every five-second action interlude takes several days to film, with thousands of stuntmen, extras, special effects, digital effects, etc. thrown in for good measure. James Bond may seem jump out of a building window, but you can rest assured that it's a stunt double, not Pierce Brosnan, taking the fall and that there is plenty of padding on the ground to prevent the stuntman from breaking his neck! The incredible hulk may seem to jump around and throw rocks at helicopters, etc., but the reality is that he is merely a computer-generated fantasy image, not even existing in reality. So the fact is that these movies, thriving on sensationalism and violence, have virtually no resemblance to the real world! Another interesting factor to consider about the movies is time compression. Everyone knows that a movie, in order to be commercially viable, shouldn't be longer than a couple of hours in duration. Yet, many movies contain stories that last several years or even decades. People often cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy when it comes to time compression--people don't realize that the fantasy world of the movies is completely fabricated, with stuntmen and special effects and, especially in the context of time compression--the extremely fast pace of the action in movies, which is necessary to make the movie commercially viable, is NOTHING like the pace of real life! This has a seriously disruptive effect in the psyche of the masses, because many people, unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy in such contexts, equate the artificially accelerated pace of the movies with the pace of real life. As a result, they go insane--which is the inevitable consequence of failing to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Again, there are any number of issues that may be addressed with regard to distortion of reality in the movies and their implication in everyday life. Maybe someday I'll write a book on the subject! I've barely scratched the surface here.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Django
"Saleability and quality are bedfellows, not opponents"--that may be true in some cases, but not usually. There are other factors such as economics, convenience, logistics, etc. For example, go to McDonalds or Burger King and eat a hamburger. Then go to the supermarket and buy some hamburger meat, some buns, lettuce, tomato, onions, etc. Then go home and take out the barbecue and make some hamburger for yourself. Also, while you're at it, grind some tomato and make your own ketchup, and some mustard seed to make your own mustard, and make some mayo while you're at it. Then put it all together and eat your own home-made hamburger. Even if you are a mediocre cook, I guarantee you that your home-made hamburger will taste a heck of a lot better. Why, then, doesn't McDonalds or Burger King sell hamburgers like that? Well, for one thing, it comes down to mass production. McD and BK produce burgers for mass consumption by the millions. Hence, they take all sorts of shortcuts to facilitate burger production--shortcuts that compromise on the quality of the burger and facilitate the saleability, by, for example, cutting the overheads, facilitating mass production, etc. Thus, you see, quality and saleability are not necessarily bedfellows at all.
You're quite confused. The reason we settle for fast food (though, for the record, I prefer Wendy's burgers to my own) is because it's FAST. We're not just buying food...we're buying food quickly prepared and reliably served for us according to our specifications. Therefore, the "quality" does not refer just to the food, but how quickly and how will it is delivered. In that sense, the quality is quite high...that's why people, ya' know, actually GO there.

This entire philosophy of yours reeks of the liberal "the masses are too stupid to realize what's good for them" school of thought.


Originally posted by Django
The same principle applies to pretty much anything. If you look at the major commercial successes in mainstream cinema, with a few exceptions, you don't see classic material that compares with classics in other mediums (e.g. literature, music, theater, etc.) Rather, you see trash produced on a mass scale for mass consumption.
Of course the good stuff is the "exception" -- good stuff is not easy to make.


Originally posted by Django
Also, you see the perpetuation of gratuitous violence, sex and sensationalism in film, again, from standpoint of pure commercial exploitation.
Exploitation? You mean when someone willingly gets in the car, drives to the theater, and shells out their money for a ticket to 2 Fast 2 Furious, they are in fact, unwittingly, being "exploited" despite their chain of deliberate actions?


Originally posted by Django
Well, the fact that the market is demand-driven means that, a) the masses are suckers for trash (esp. with a good measure of violence, sex and sensationalism) and b) the producers are eager to exploit the popular tastes to make a quick buck. So both parties are equally to blame.
You say they're suckers, and perhaps they are, but you seem to be forgetting that your taste is not universal, nor is it objective. It is merely your own. In regards to b), see above.


Originally posted by Django
You have totally distorted everything I have said and taken it all way out of context! And when did I ever mention the space-time continuum in any of my posts, I'd like to know?
"I think it's vitally important for people to realize this, because what is at stake is our very concept of the universe we live in."

It's called satire. You take yourself (and your opinions) WAY too seriously, Paco.


Originally posted by Django
And the reason they do is because the kind of food they offer is not commercially viable when it comes to mass production. For the same reason, again, that quality theater, opera, symphony music, etc. also costs a great deal of money compared to cinema--because they are not commercially viable from the context of mass production. Which is a pity because only a few people--those who can afford it--are exposed to it. Lack of commercial viability drives up the prices.
You're all mixed up. Some people sell 5 cars for $10,000, and others sell 1 car for $50,000. As the price goes up, the sales tend to go down, unless the product in question is some kind of monopolized necessity. People do not run high-class restaurants out of the goodness of their hearts...they do it primarily because it makes them money. The idea that financial motivation is not behind the overwhelming majority of products, both high AND low end, is hopelessly naive.


Originally posted by Django
James Bond may seem jump out of a building window, but you can rest assured that it's a stunt double, not Pierce Brosnan, taking the fall and that there is plenty of padding on the ground to prevent the stuntman from breaking his neck!
Originally posted by Django
...these movies, thriving on sensationalism and violence, have virtually no resemblance to the real world!
Originally posted by Django
...the extremely fast pace of the action in movies, which is necessary to make the movie commercially viable, is NOTHING like the pace of real life!
As far as I can make out, your complaints are as follows:

1) Movies use stuntmen.
2) Movies are fictional.
3) Movies are not in real time.

And to think we let our CHILDREN watch these things! May God have mercy on our Souls.


Originally posted by Django
This has a seriously disruptive effect in the psyche of the masses, because many people, unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy in such contexts, equate the artificially accelerated pace of the movies with the pace of real life. As a result, they go insane...
Wow.

Just...wow.

[Caitlyn]

Originally posted by Django

This has a seriously disruptive effect in the psyche of the masses, because many people, unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy in such contexts, equate the artificially accelerated pace of the movies with the pace of real life. As a result, they go insane…


This might explain a lot… :indifferent:

[Beale the Rippe]

How come this always happens?

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Django

Well, whether you read it in a newspaper or on the internet, you still have to read it! I don't see how you can call the medium "passive"

I didn't. Reading less newspapers or the sites of the newspapers leads to passivity.

The internet is simply a medium of publication--digitally rather than on print, which is eco-friendly, because it saves the trees, and also extremely useful when it comes to research, because you don't have to worry about leafing through thousands of paper pages, rendering information extremely accessible to boot!

That's one of the advantages, yes, and I have never argued against that.

Secondly, the ease with which information can be published allows new voices to be heard--voices that may have been silenced in the "paper age".

We have free press in Sweden and I know that USA has too.

With the internet, we stand to get much closer to the sources of the information as opposed to relying on an institutional version--we are no longer dependent on the "official version" because we can get to the source of the information much more readily. On the other hand, however, there is the possibility of false information being propagated, but, over time, this problem can be addressed and false information can be removed. Incidentally, you said that once information is published on the internet, it can never be removed or altered.

No, I didn't.

This is untrue, because if the server that hosts the information is shut down, it is no longer available on the internet, so I don't see how you can make such a claim. Ultimately, though, people invariably turn to reliable news sources, even on the internet.

Reliable according to who? How can a daily newspaper with an official political belonging with responsible chief editor and publisher be less reliable than a Internet site that doesn't even say who the publisher is?

The difference is that you can read the latest headlines of the New York Times every morning online for free as opposed to walking down the street to the newstand and shelling out 50 cents for a copy, only to read, e.g., the headlines on the front page, but having to buy the rest of the paper as well. Furthermore, you can check out the headlines on cnn.com, msnbc.com, the online Washington Post, the online San Francisco Chronicle and a host of other papers at the same time, again without spending a dime, and reading the latest news and only bothering about the stuff you want or the info you need. How this can possibly qualify as a bad thing, I don't know!

It isn't a bad thing. The problem is that it's the same people who read newspapers that read their Internet sites. Internet hasn't increased awareness of people. I've seen statistics on this.

What is more, you don't have to rely on the "official source" but, very often, you can corroborate their claims by going directly to the source of the information. And, on top of it all, thanks to forums, email, etc., you can make your voice heard regarding important issues in an immediate, dynamic fashion (case in point, MoFo).

True. Internet is a great forum for people (who is fortunate enough to have access to a pc on a regular basis). But it doesn't increase the knowledge of those people who didn't read newspapers before.

[Django]

First of all, I have to say that Yoda's comments, to which I am grudgingly responding (not because I feel that such idiocy deserves a response, but because I just don't want him to have the last word, especially when his words are so hopeless moronic) is a classic example of an "argument for argument's sake", i.e. Yoda does not have any sort of coherent point that he is trying to make--he is simply trying, here, to gainsay anything I have said, purely for the sake of contradiction and to prove is "astounding intelligence", which looks, to me, suspiciously as if it is seriously lacking. Anyway, so much for my long-winded sentences, and on with the show . . . :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Yoda

You're quite confused. The reason we settle for fast food (though, for the record, I prefer Wendy's burgers to my own) is because it's FAST. We're not just buying food...we're buying food quickly prepared and reliably served for us according to our specifications. Therefore, the "quality" does not refer just to the food, but how quickly and how will it is delivered. In that sense, the quality is quite high...that's why people, ya' know, actually GO there.

This entire philosophy of yours reeks of the liberal "the masses are too stupid to realize what's good for them" school of thought.

Ho hum! :yawn: More "Rush Limbaugh" style hysteria and paranoia and a complete distortion of my words. Another Pulitzer No-Prize to Chris for journalistic distortion and bias.

Anyway, my point is that mass production is about undermining quality for commercial reasons. I don't see how your refutation has any basis. The same principle applies to Wendy's burgers, incidentally. For the record, I prefer Burger King to Wendy's--at least BK broilers are genuinely broiled!

Chris, you "patriotic" defense of American industry has entered a stage of being laughably pathetic! :laugh:

Originally posted by Yoda

Of course the good stuff is the "exception" -- good stuff is not easy to make.
And that's why it isn't commercially viable, because it doesn't lend itself to mass production. My point was to show that there is an inverse correlation between quality and commercialism, esp. with reference to mass production. Nothing you have said thus far in any way challenges this point. Again, look at my example--even a MEDIOCRE cook can make hamburgers that taste better than what the fast-food chains have to offer us. Surely that says something!

Originally posted by Yoda

Exploitation? You mean when someone willingly gets in the car, drives to the theater, and shells out their money for a ticket to 2 Fast 2 Furious, they are in fact, unwittingly, being "exploited" despite their chain of deliberate actions?
I don't know if you are intentionally being facetious or whether you are just too stupid to understand what I am saying. If you can't understand how gratuitous violence, sex and sensationalism in the movies is exploitative then God help you! Your soul is already lost! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Yoda

You say they're suckers, and perhaps they are, but you seem to be forgetting that your taste is not universal, nor is it objective. It is merely your own. In regards to b), see above.
Well, whatever my taste, I'm hardly referring to my own subjective taste in this context. As it happens, for the record, I think I have very good taste, and, I would say, a lot of people might agree with me. Anyway, I was referring to universally acknowledged things like literary classics, high grade restaurants, symphonic music, the arts, theater, etc. It's not simply my opinion that places these things in high regard, it is the opinion of most, if not all, highly regarded critics. Of course, feel free to challenge their opinions and put your own dubious opinion on a higher pedestal than theirs. I don't know how far you will get!

Originally posted by Yoda

"I think it's vitally important for people to realize this, because what is at stake is our very concept of the universe we live in."

It's called satire. You take yourself (and your opinions) WAY too seriously, Paco.
You might call it "satire," Chico, I call it stupidity! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Yoda

You're all mixed up. Some people sell 5 cars for $10,000, and others sell 1 car for $50,000. As the price goes up, the sales tend to go down, unless the product in question is some kind of monopolized necessity. People do not run high-class restaurants out of the goodness of their hearts...they do it primarily because it makes them money. The idea that financial motivation is not behind the overwhelming majority of products, both high AND low end, is hopelessly naive.
Well, sure, people who run high class restaurants are interested in making a profit--which is why they are in the business. BUT, they are ALSO concerned with QUALITY, and that's why their restaurants are not conducive to franchising or mass production, in which case, high quality is harder, if not impossible, to maintain. Mass production and franchising tend towards increased commercialism at the expense of quality. See the inverse correlation between commercialism and quality? That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Originally posted by Yoda

As far as I can make out, your complaints are as follows:

1) Movies use stuntmen.
2) Movies are fictional.
3) Movies are not in real time.

And to think we let our CHILDREN watch these things! May God have mercy on our Souls.
What, are you completely stupid? I'm talking about a distortion of reality in the movies and the effect it can have on peoples' psyches with respect to our concept of reality. Is that so hard to comprehend? One of the chief examples I cited was the time distortion effect--time compression. Another one I cited was the use of stuntmen. All this was to demonstrate that the movies present us with a distorted impression of reality, which impressionable people, like, e.g. children, could be negatively affected by.

Originally posted by Yoda

Wow.

Just...wow.
Oh, I suppose you happen to know a great many people who are incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy and are in the very pink of mental health? If you cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy, you are well on the way to losing your mind, if not already clinically insane. This is a fact.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Django
Ho hum! :yawn: More "Rush Limbaugh" style hysteria and paranoia and a complete distortion of my words. Another Pulitzer No-Prize to Chris for journalistic distortion and bias.

Anyway, my point is that mass production is about undermining quality for commercial reasons. I don't see how your refutation has any basis. The same principle applies to Wendy's burgers, incidentally. For the record, I prefer Burger King to Wendy's--at least BK broilers are genuinely broiled!

Chris, you "patriotic" defense of American industry has entered a stage of being laughably pathetic! :laugh:
Ignoring the fact that you've already fallen into simply repeating yourself, your thinking is so utterly wrong that I hardly know where to begin correcting it. I'm still wondering how in the hell you managed to convince yourself that it's somehow in an entrepreneur's interest to undermine quality. I suspect it stems from your complete density regarding just what "quality" means.


Originally posted by Django
And that's why it isn't commercially viable, because it doesn't lend itself to mass production. My point was to show that there is an inverse correlation between quality and commercialism, esp. with reference to mass production. Nothing you have said thus far in any way challenges this point. Again, look at my example--even a MEDIOCRE cook can make hamburgers that taste better than what the fast-food chains have to offer us. Surely that says something!
First, as I ALREADY stated, I don't generally prefer homemade burgers to fast food ones, so your example proves nothing not relating to your own taste.

Second, even if I were to concede what you say about an inverse correlation, the principles of mass production do not apply to filmmaking the way they do to foodmaking. The food industry makes money by selling people food (in finite supply) and work (to prepare and serve it). The movie industry only sells the right to view a copy of the film.


Originally posted by Django
I don't know if you are intentionally being facetious or whether you are just too stupid to understand what I am saying. If you can't understand how gratuitous violence, sex and sensationalism in the movies is exploitative then God help you! Your soul is already lost! :rolleyes:
Exploitation implies wrongdoing....taking advantage of people in an unfair way to benefit yourself.


Originally posted by Django
I was referring to universally acknowledged things like literary classics, high grade restaurants, symphonic music, the arts, theater, etc. It's not simply my opinion that places these things in high regard, it is the opinion of most, if not all, highly regarded critics.
So it is your place, and the place of most critics, to tell people they are at fault for enjoying Big Macs? Well, at least you're consistent: that certainly lines up with your inflated sense of self-importance.


Originally posted by Django
Well, sure, people who run high class restaurants are interested in making a profit--which is why they are in the business. BUT, they are ALSO concerned with QUALITY, and that's why their restaurants are not conducive to franchising or mass production, in which case, high quality is harder, if not impossible, to maintain. Mass production and franchising tend towards increased commercialism at the expense of quality. See the inverse correlation between commercialism and quality? That's the point I'm trying to make here.
It's stunning how confused you are. Really.

The proprietors of high-class restaurants are not concerned with quality for the hell of it, or due to some altruistic devotion to providing the world with fine cuisine. Stating that the quality of cinema would go up if you removed most of the financial incentive is akin to stating L’ecrivain's level of service would remain the same even if they were forced to charge no more than Arby's.


Originally posted by Django
What, are you completely stupid? I'm talking about a distortion of reality in the movies and the effect it can have on peoples' psyches with respect to our concept of reality. Is that so hard to comprehend? One of the chief examples I cited was the time distortion effect--time compression. Another one I cited was the use of stuntmen. All this was to demonstrate that the movies present us with a distorted impression of reality, which impressionable people, like, e.g. children, could be negatively affected by.
You're criticizing movies because they're not in real-time and portrary fictional events.

You're out of your f**ckin' mind.


Originally posted by Django
Oh, I suppose you happen to know a great many people who are incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy and are in the very pink of mental health? If you cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy, you are well on the way to losing your mind, if not already clinically insane. This is a fact.
Who the hell becomes clinically insane from watching movies? Who is lacking mental stability inasmuch as watching Die Another Day sends them spiraling into insanity, other than yourself?

You don't have to worry about movies detaching you from reality, bub. You've managed that on your own.

[Steve]

Originally posted by Yoda

I think you've got it completely backwards. Removing commercial incentive will ensure LESS, not more, in the way of entertaining cinema. Insinuating that removing money from the picture will result in some sort of happy communistic film society where people are driven to excel out of pure movie altruism strikes me as borderline delusional.


Delusional maybe, but it's a goal. Hopefully one day. :love:
I don't want to remove the money, I just want free artistic license for all filmmakers, because if that happened every movie would sprout from that pure love of cinema and the art form would be broken wide open.

Still, money and artistic license are usually at odds with one another, so I think the best solution is to find a balance between the two. I wish it were easier for smaller, more specialized movies to compete with the bigger-budgeted movies, instead of shoving the little pictures into back-alley shacks, basically crippling their chances of being seen. I can't think of a reasonable way to actually do this, though, so I've kept mum on the subject for a long time.

Originally posted by Django
What, are you completely stupid? I'm talking about a distortion of reality in the movies and the effect it can have on peoples' psyches with respect to our concept of reality. Is that so hard to comprehend? One of the chief examples I cited was the time distortion effect--time compression. Another one I cited was the use of stuntmen. All this was to demonstrate that the movies present us with a distorted impression of reality, which impressionable people, like, e.g. children, could be negatively affected by.

Movies present us with a 'distorted' impression of reality in the same way poetry and music do.

[The Silver Bullet]

Then poets and musicians must also burn in the flaming pits of Hell.

[Piddzilla]

"If there is hell below, we're all gonna go!"

[Django]

!

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Django

Well, if you go to the New York Times website, obviously, the publisher is the same as the newspaper. Same applies to any other online newspaper. Similarly, the publishers of cnn.com and msnbc.com are pretty obviously CNN and MSNBC, respectively. The publisher of any reputed online news source is usually the same as a reputed offline news source, so, typically, there isn't any sort of confusion in that respect.

Obviously I wasn't talking about the sites that are just extentions of the newspapers - it's pretty clear who the publishers are in those cases.

Well, maybe so, but at least the internet has increased the accessibility of news sources. Also, you have the multimedia deal added to news sources, so that you can watch/listen to video and audio clips, etc.

Increased the accessibility, yes, but it hasn't increased the number of people reading what used to be found exclusively in newspapers.

Well, it increases the accessibility of news sources. What more can it be expected to do?

I don't know. I mentioned that I thought it was scary that less people read newspapers and you said something that sounded like Internet would take care of that problem. I have never questioned the accessibility of Internet - but I don't see it as the solution to the problem of growing passivity and lack of interest in general of people.

People don't read newspapers anymore and Internet is not changing things to the better in that department. It's as simple as that. But that doesn't mean I think Internet is a bad thing. I'm on here several hours a day, aint I??

[Django]

!

[Piddzilla]

Yoda, Silver, Django... Why don't you take this somewhere else?? I suggest Yahoo! Messenger or icq. This old vendetta bores the **** out of me.

[The Silver Bullet]

It bores me too.

[Yoda]

If you don't like the "same old feud," you're in the wrong thread. This little tiff has been relatively on-topic.

[Piddzilla]

I don't give a **** about your childish "feud" but if it affects the discussion I am having with Django it's just too much. Were there any comments directed towards me in the posts by Django that you deleted??

[Yoda]

1) This "feud" isn't interfering with anything. The argument in this thread is a perfect extension of this thread's topic. Have you read it, or are you assuming it's petty nonsense?

2) I didn't delete or edit his posts. From what I saw of them before they were edited, no, I don't think he mentioned you.

3) Come off it. You might like to fancy yourself as the grown-up here (and above the fray, as it were), but there's nothing at all mature about rolling your eyes and lumping legitimate gripes under one big heading labeled "Childish."

[Piddzilla]

Yeah, your signature is really mature...

I don't know about being the grown-up here - maybe that's just how you make me feel because, yes, you make me feel like a real grown-up.

Hey, Yoda. Watch this: :rolleyes:

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
Yeah, your signature is really mature...
At this point I can't tell if you act this way to feel superior, or if your alleged maturity is really just a convienent way to mask a lacking sense of humor.


Originally posted by Piddzilla
I don't know about being the grown-up here - maybe that's just how you make me feel because, yes, you make me feel like a real grown-up.
What?

Look, this is quite simple: regardless of whether or not arguing with Django is immature, it's certainly no less immature than looking down on the whole thing with some holier-than-thou attitude. He's (inexplicably) intent on staying, so the least we can do is find an amusing side to it. This misplaced "knock it off, you damn kids" attitude isn't helping anything, and isn't applicable, either.

[Piddzilla]

Holier than thou? My god... Listen, I don't know and I don't care whether you're fighting or making love to each other because I don't even read the comments not directed to me. But when you start deleting posts that might contain things directed to me - I get pissed off. But it was Silver and not you who did that and he has allready apologized to me (even though it apparently didn't contain anything for me).

So just chill, man...

About the signature. I don't know whether it's because of my so called maturity or lack of sense of humour - but I still think it's childish.

Over and out...

[Django]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
Holier than thou? My god... Listen, I don't know and I don't care whether you're fighting or making love to each other because I don't even read the comments not directed to me. But when you start deleting posts that might contain things directed to me - I get pissed off. But it was Silver and not you who did that and he has allready apologized to me (even though it apparently didn't contain anything for me).
Hey, don't involve me in Yoda's gay sexual fantasies, please! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Piddzilla
About the signature. I don't know whether it's because of my so called maturity or lack of sense of humour - but I still think it's childish.
Hear, hear!

Incidentally, Yoda . . . real mature! So many of my posts have been deleted or edited on this and other threads, that I've lost count! Like Piddzilla said, "real mature!"

Yoda, I started a separate thread for us to feud in private without bothering the rest of the people in the forum and intruding on their threads of discussion, but it looks like you cannot even do them that much courtesy! Again, "real mature!"

:rolleyes:

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
So just chill, man...

About the signature. I don't know whether it's because of my so called maturity or lack of sense of humour - but I still think it's childish.

Over and out...
I'm chilled, man. Believe you me.

Concerning the signature: I think the neurotic repetition and all-around insecurity of it is downright hilarious, but to each their own.


Originally posted by Django
Hey, don't involve me in Yoda's gay sexual fantasies, please! :rolleyes:
It's kinda sad that the only thing you "have" on me is a facetious comment.


Originally posted by Django
Yoda, I started a separate thread for us to feud in private without bothering the rest of the people in the forum and intruding on their threads of discussion, but it looks like you cannot even do them that much courtesy! Again, "real mature!"
As I recall, you completely bailed in that thread.

Real mature.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Originally posted by Django
Hey, don't involve me in Yoda's gay sexual fantasies, please! :rolleyes:

Okay, then let's get involved in yours....

http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/theguys.jpg

[Django]

Originally posted by Sexy Celebrity

Okay, then let's get involved in yours....
:laugh: Sick, twisted, perverse, and yet, at the same time, weirdly humorous!

[Django]

Originally posted by Yoda

It's kinda sad that the only thing you "have" on me is a facetious comment.
Hey, I'm not the one going around claiming to be having sex with you! Please! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Yoda

As I recall, you completely bailed in that thread.

Real mature.
I refuse to answer to totally absurd and ridiculous allegations, with which you were insulting my intelligence! There's a fine line between a legitimate complaint and complete irrelevancy. In my mind, you have crossed that line way too often.