Waste of time
-
erwinvegas — 11 years ago(August 05, 2014 01:27 AM)
Extremely late to this party, I know, but with so many subjects sub-link these days, I'll never find them all on time
.
Your reply got me thinking for a bit and I had to respond. I couldn't let it go because your reply seems to twist this way and that, more of a high school debate captain's moves than coming to actual helpful points about movie making. Yet your questions are good, such as a riddle.
I think the answer is that movies have become more than art. That saddens me a little, because I am one of those supposed "hypocrites" for thinking the masses need help finding or understanding what an artful or thoughtful film was doing, while also making fun of (or hating) the films equivalent to, as you accurately described, junk food. I want movies to be art, though like you, I have belly-laughed at some bad well let's say sometimes I like "junk food" too.
Now forms of art have always collected fans and foes since the "beginning", however when I look back decades or more, at paintings, writings, music, and especially dance, it seems people today have evolved or devolved to include a broader spectrum of quality, and I swear it's because of not having the time to know any better, their worlds cluttered with the cheap, fast and out-of-control. The junk food is selling enough to make a good living, while people hundreds of years ago may have gagged if tasting cheetos or twinkies for the first time. Maybe not. All I know is my foreign exchange students used to food in Italy or France usually referred to our supermarket bread as "rubber bread" for a reason. The point is, standards have dropped for several reasons. It's still happening, from the experiences I've had with many films over the last 15 years. "Needs" AND "intentions" lazily included the film can still suck.
Finally, I think your point for the person "looking down their nose" is only part right. You don't actually provide an answer to the problem. And It's a tough one I understand. Another thing I understand is that Michael Bay is certainly not the most successful director of movies, unless success is only measured in "doing what you want" and you're still a joke. Do you know for sure Bay wants to make movies the equivalent of junk food? Maybe he's tried to be serious and realistic at times, and after enough people said "it sucked", he just followed what got them to buy tickets anyway. the non-stop schlock action instead of understanding how films he loved as a kid were made.
What I'm saying with all this stuff is this; I can only guess what the directors and others were trying to do with their films, and I DO make good guesses (according to follow-up interviews), however when I get "hypocritical" according to you, it's just not that simple. I see more films the last 20 years that attempt realism, comedy or everything, then turns out like a Michael Bay film (or IS a Michael Bay film), and starts to rot in continuity then the intention is impossible to know from the work, and it's a failure as a film even if masses have bought tickets to escape life. That's not success even if films are being forced to avoid being art for the sake of including something for everyone. The viewers should just go to an amusement park.
I still don't think the "professor" should say what a film "needs" to do. She/He should SUGGEST what a film that works well usually includes. Otherwise, an art professor would be right in telling someone what art "needs", when we all know some of the worst and best art in human history always flutters between objective/subjective when experienced, therefore the most "non-involving" pieces might still be considered masterpieces some day. -
SnoozeAlarm — 13 years ago(November 12, 2012 11:19 AM)
bstephens21 you come across as arrogant. you could make you points without the condescension
http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c -
Mustafa32 — 14 years ago(June 20, 2011 08:07 AM)
The director's cut of Heaven's Gate is, and is widely regarded as, an absolute masterpiece. It does require the audience to pay attention and use their brains, however. And if you "couldn't make out who everybody is" then maybe you should be watching it in a cinema as intended and not on a mobile phone.
-
looking4ahandout — 15 years ago(June 21, 2010 07:07 AM)
I watched Heaven's Gate because of the infamous reputation. Obviously I am in the minority but I didn't think it was that bad. Not great but not deserving of the reputation it has. If it didn't lose so much money it would be viewed differently. I've seen far worse films that don't get treated like Heaven's Gate because they made money or cost little to make.
-
-
bstephens21 — 15 years ago(December 23, 2010 12:15 AM)
If you want to cling to that opinion, its your right. I have no intention of fighting the windmills. I just want to open up the dialogue on the film to allow it the conversation it deserves.
And ultimately, I am confident that critical opinion
will
swing closer to my direction in the coming years. I'm already seeing the small rumblings of a full-scale reconsideration of the film, and considering some of the "plans" for the film in the future, I see no reason for it to lose momentum.
We can only wait and see. -
okami36 — 14 years ago(August 16, 2011 02:44 AM)
I thought this movie was a lot like Caligula in many ways.
Both had an interesting person/event at the heart of the story.
Both had a ton of great actors/actresses.
Both are way too long.
Both are boring.
This could've been called "Dramatic Pause: The Movie" or "Lots of Footage of People Walking and/or Doing Very Little".
Had the pacing been tighter, this could've been a great film. -
ABetterDay — 13 years ago(March 02, 2013 04:46 PM)
Heaven's Gate is a terrible film. Actually.it's not so much a film as it is a political statement. It should not have been made. Liberalism run amok.
Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?