Movie-Specific : The Dark Knight Rises

[tef]

I'm honestly not trolling, but I found it funny when you did that classic "I'm done responding" then you kept responding thing. If I were to say that I'd then abide by it. But to me it's silly to actually say it, rather than simply stop responding out of a lack of interest in the topic.

I also really don't like more than a handful of Beatles songs. Reverence for any person/group of people bores the everliving fuck out of me. Even the divine, such as Italo Calvino.

[ShogunRua]

For anyone who thinks "The Catcher in the Rye" is an awful book or that Nolan's Batman's are awful, while you're entitled to your opinion (as everyone is), ultimately the joke is on you.

"The Catcher in the Rye" is an amazing book and Nolan's Batman movies are phenomenal; and the fact that the MAJORITY(nerds or not) of book/film lovers believe this and want more of these, means the "industry" will keep moving in directions which support books such as "The Catcher in the Rye" and movies like Nolan's Batman's.

Let's not drag the worthless, brain-dead populist argument into this.

Sadly, the MAJORITY thinks Transformers and Twilight are "phenomenal", and thus, the "industry will keep moving in directions which support" THEM, too. Terrific, huh?

By the way, while I absolutely loved "The Catcher in the Rye", I sure as hell don't like the thousand and one rip-offs and hack-job films Hollywood has made trying to cash in on the character and story.

I could do without crap like "Igby Goes Down" or "It's kind of a Funny Story". Hollywood latching onto a money-maker is NEVER a good thing, ayall; rather, it means a ton of shitty, brain-dead recreations.

Anywho, none of this has much to do with what we've been discussing. I think "Batman Begins" is trash, but believe "The Dark Knight" is an all-time great pure entertainment picture. I would love it if Hollywood could at least make more pictures like that.

The point is that it's not "art".

(At one point the Majority also thought the world was flat, so that's why I hesitate to say the majority is right...)

The vast majority of the time, the majority is wrong! Not only does this nameless, faceless, completely random "majority" love Twilight and Transformers, they're the same ones that elected incompetent idiots George W Bush and Barack Obama as our presidents.

I wouldn't trust the "majority" with putting their clothes on correctly, let alone deciding abstract questions.

So let's ignore them, and actually try to make cogent arguments based on the merits of a film, okay?

Ultimately I feel sadness for the haters; Not so much because your opinions are awful, but because you are doomed to live a life of disappointment since you can't appreciate "Modern" Films/Movies.

I don't know who you're talking about here. If you look at my list, the 2000s are probably the single most highly represented decades among my favorites. Like I wrote, I loved the 2000s for movies.

However, the 70s are the absolute best, and I feel sadness for you if you can't appreciate a movie older than 20 years just because it lacks "technology", the reason you gave.

[ShogunRua]

Art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. (as found on dictionary.com)

I'm going by Joseph Conrad's definition of "art", i.e. something that speaks to the common human condition.

Using the dictionary.com definition, anything and everything can be "art". Also, what the hell is "ordinary significance", and what isn't?

I don't know how you personally define art, but I would say that there are certain "popcorn blockbusters" that could fall into the definition of art.

There's a huge difference between "movies that I like" and "movies that I consider art". The first set is much larger than the second, and the intersection between the two is not that great.

I legitimately think that people now days are trying to confine art to only things that are very serious,

...No? Where do you get this from?

Saying that something made with lighter themes, less symbolism, and less standout characters is not art completely ignores entire genres that require massive amount of creativity to make into worthwhile cinematic adventures.

You're projecting here, dude. I never wrote any of this.

To answer your specific question about whether I consider what stand-up comedians do "art" or not...maybe? There is indeed something brilliant and unusual that touches the human condition in the work of someone like a Norm MacDonald, Ricky Gervais, Sean Locke, or Russ Noble.

In the routine of someone like Carlos Mencia, Dane Cook, or Margaret Cho? Fuck no. And while stand-up nerds will froth in anger at this, not in the work of Louis CK either, even though I like him and think he's good at what he does.

Again, not everyone who is really good at what they do is necessarily an "artist", (this goes for books and movies, too) and not everything I like is "art". In fact, most aren't.

I recently read an article written about George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. The article said fantasy is essentially second class literature because the authors can use magic as a deus ex machina whenever they want so they are lazy writers.

Then he's a fucking idiot, and I would have stopped reading the article right there, as well as a single word that author had to say about anything else.

the author of the article is expressing something similar to how many people feel about comic books and comic book based movies,

Some comic books are absolutely art. Most that I would call this are Japanese, but there is at least one Western comic I would say is pretty close to "art". (The Watchmen)

You're assuming that I wouldn't consider them art, when in fact, I never once mentioned comics at all. Don't assume!

While what Nolan does is nowhere on the level of somebody like Kubrik, I would still call it art.

In many ways, what Nolan is doing is way BETTER than what Kubrick did.

I wouldn't call most Kubrick films "art", by the way.

[CMonster]

I wasn't really questioning your opinion on stand up or what you consider art, I was more just making the statement that it seemed you were implying popcorn blockbuster entertainment wasn't art. In fact in your last reply to ayall that was the last thing you said. Your definition of what can be considered cinematic art my be more narrow or contain different criteria or you may simply interpret things differently. I was just essentially throwing out a more complex version of "art is subjective." Just by saying it isn't art, doesn't make it not art for somebody else. I would also say your definition is just as ambiguous and can be applied to many things that most people wouldn't consider art. I know that over coming adversity against all odds with your back to the wall and the world on the line speak to different aspects of the human condition, thus Transformers is art. Again, I wouldn't say I particularly disagree with your definition but something as ambiguous as to what art is can't really be pinned down.

I'm also totally down with the critique of the populist argument. Ke$ha is to music as fecal urgency is to my body. It's crap and hopefully it ends quickly, yet somehow people seems to be affected by it when they shouldn't be and want it to keep going.

[ShogunRua]

I wasn't really questioning your opinion on stand up or what you consider art, I was more just making the statement that it seemed you were implying popcorn blockbuster entertainment wasn't art.

Indeed, they're not. That's why I call them "popcorn blockbuster movies" or "pure entertainment films". Their goal is merely to entertain, whether by humor or awe at a fight scene/explosion.

By the way, since when does everything have to be "art"? Most things that I enjoy in life are anything but art. I don't mind this, and neither should anyone else.

There's often as much honor in being a great craftsman or a great director who chooses to only make excellent popcorn blockbusters (like Nolan) than there is in being an artist.

Your definition of what can be considered cinematic art my be more narrow or contain different criteria or you may simply interpret things differently.

Again, I'm using a very specific definition here; namely, the one written by Joseph Conrad. He's a fellow who knew a tiny bit about what the fuck "art" is.

I know that over coming adversity against all odds with your back to the wall and the world on the line speak to different aspects of the human condition, thus Transformers is art.

If it portrayed overcoming adversity in a realistic, interesting, original manner, then yes, Transformers would be art. However, it does not. Ergo, it is not art.

Again, I wouldn't say I particularly disagree with your definition but something as ambiguous as to what art is can't really be pinned down.

It's not mine, dude. It's a definition by one of the greatest artists to ever live.

[CMonster]

Art is still subjective, your definition is still ambiguous, and Ke$ha still sucks is really all I was trying to say.

[TheDenizen]

Ke$ha still sucks is really all I was trying to say.

I think we've finally hit on something we can all agree on

[tef]

I love the lyrical viewpoint of a person who says, "Maybe I need some rehab/Or maybe I need some sleep." Because when you've got a 'sick obsession,' those are the two methods to remedy it.

[djross]

As someone not really enthused by blockbuster superhero movies, here, for what its worth, are my mini-reviews of the Batman movies I've seen:

Batman (1966). Score: 40
Campy fun.

Batman (1989). Score: 55
A creative and impressive but also silly movie.

Batman Returns (1992). Score: 40
The viewer has the feeling that this is, perhaps, the way Burton prefers to do it (compared with the first film). Yet one still has to be very willing to buy into a lot of nonsense, otherwise the whole thing remains just another unaffecting special effects action extravaganza coated with an extremely thin veneer of social critique.

Batman Begins (2005). Score: 45
Tries very hard to be a "serious" exploration of Batman's genesis, and contains some imaginative and impressive imagery, but takes a long time to get going, and fails really to deliver much of interest in the second half. Despite its attempts at exploring psychology and character, in the end it is unable to throw off a sense of silliness, nor is it able to avoid falling into the usual tedium one expects from movies of this type. I'll take Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder any day.

The Dark Knight (2008). Score: 65
Definitely an improvement over "Batman Begins," with more interesting themes, a driving narrative, and, in spite of its purported darkness, a greater sense of fun. The quality of the imagery is extremely high, although the action is still at times rather obscured by darkness and editing. It is without doubt a superior example of this kind of ultra-commercial filmmaking. Final opinion probably depends on the degree to which the viewer is willing to enter into the world and concerns of the movie.

[mwgerb]

Ke$ha still sucks is really all I was trying to say.

I think we've finally hit on something we can all agree on

I have a friend who likes Ke$ha. Of course, he justifies it by claiming that all of her trashy lyrics are an elaborate, ironic mockery of other popular celebrities, and that she's actually intelligent and talented, backed up by her being an International Baccalaureate student who plays multiple instruments. Still, though, those people are out there.