Mark's right. Nevertheless, you bring up an interesting discussion topic.
This isn't even true. I've done far worse.
Take a look at McLuhan's tetrad of media effects.
1. What does the medium enhance?
2. What does the medium make obsolete?
3. What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier?
4. What does the medium flip into when pushed to extremes?
I knew everything about There Will Be Blood--I follow P. T. Anderson's every move obsessively--and I think I probably loved it even more than you did because of it. I think advertising is DEFINITELY a part of the art form. Take a look at the recent trailer for Scott Pilgrim. It's probably the coolest thing I've ever seen, but the film's probably utterly unextraordinary. Hell, even indie bands make music videos, right? And you know what? Usually those are the best ones!
So you probably enjoyed There will be blood more than me because of your obsession with P.T Anderson? Same with me and Ridley Scott flicks, and I could'nt agree more with the concept of what your saying but i'd like to reiterate, in case you've read my post and misunderstood.
NOT ONCE did I say that the brief form of commercialisation also know as 'Tag-lines' were not effective, I simply stated that
I disagreed with your post that
"A FILM IS NOTHING WITHOUT ITS TAGLINE" , I then gave an example of me enjoying a film with no prior knowledge of the films plot, not least its Tagline.
I do however disagree with the idea that advertising adds to the
quality of the art form. I appreciate the power of the media, I've studied it for 8 consecutive years on the various courses I've ended up on, It certainly can subsequently result in me subconsciously psychoanalysing the film for more detail until I've found it and finding plot detail others wouldn't care to look for (Chris Nolan films obtain this). The art form, remains the same in my opinion especially since the tag-lines are almost always fleshed out within the actual film.... have you ever walked out of a film and thought " hmm I don't know where they got that tagline from and/or what was it referring to.
Essentially though even with the 'good point you just made' your original comment was ridiculous, unless of course your implying a film is nothing unless you have some sort of connection or appreciation with a particular member of crew like a director e.t.c that is enhanced by additional commercialisation.
I stand by my original statement, that a film is not "nothing without its tagline".
Oh, and it may actually be your worst post based entirely on the fact that your response completely contradicted your original statement, I'm happy to call it 'worst couple of posts"
.