|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Feb 9, 2024 4:20:41 GMT
Well I don't think it's a movie for 11 years olds exactly. It does have suggestive material and is kind of slow until the final act the point is, i at least *sat through it* because i respected George Lucas enough to be curious |
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Feb 9, 2024 5:14:11 GMT
Well I don't think it's a movie for 11 years olds exactly. It does have suggestive material and is kind of slow until the final act the point is, i at least *sat through it* because i respected George Lucas enough to be curious Curiosity is a good thing indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Feb 10, 2024 7:09:13 GMT
We all have our blindspots. I've never come across it being aired on television, while I've not seen it at a video shop either. Like it or not, it's relatively obscure-niche title.
Cryo still has yet to see TCW, and I've been bugging him about it for over 4 years now.
I shall part my money with Jeff Bezoz and I'll have a copy soon. Not to worry.
Why don't you want to watch it?
Where did I say I didn't want to watch it?!
Unfortunately I can't sit around watching movies all day. I don't see as many these days anyway, the quality of the output at the cinema has dramatically fallen since the 2010s.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Feb 10, 2024 15:08:47 GMT
Why don't you want to watch it?
Where did I say I didn't want to watch it?!
Unfortunately I can't sit around watching movies all day. I don't see as many these days anyway, the quality of the output at the cinema has dramatically fallen since the 2010s.
Please. |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Feb 13, 2024 12:53:42 GMT
Star Wars is a trap. It always was. It's designed to mesmerize children and create lifelong consumers. Built within it, are continuous not-so-hidden references to this film and its themes. But most people *prefer the trap*
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Mar 7, 2024 23:15:18 GMT
It's designed to mesmerize children and create lifelong consumers.
You're sounding like a 2000s prequel basher. Watch it, Stamp.  |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Mar 7, 2024 23:17:48 GMT
It's designed to mesmerize children and create lifelong consumers.
You're sounding like a 2000s prequel basher. Watch it, Stamp. Well, if it works... |
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Mar 8, 2024 3:08:21 GMT
Star Wars is a trap. It always was. It's designed to mesmerize children and create lifelong consumers. Built within it, are continuous not-so-hidden references to this film and its themes. But most people *prefer the trap* I agree. All art is essentially an opiate when it merely entertains without encouraging action or provoking thought; both catalysts for change. But GL once remarked at a convention in the 2010s or thereabouts that SW was intended to inspire young people to get out into the world and change it for the better. It definitely seemed like a cautionary remark. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Mar 18, 2024 18:40:48 GMT
Star Wars is a trap. It always was. It's designed to mesmerize children and create lifelong consumers. Built within it, are continuous not-so-hidden references to this film and its themes. But most people *prefer the trap* I agree. All art is essentially an opiate when it merely entertains without encouraging action or provoking thought; both catalysts for change. But GL once remarked at a convention in the 2010s or thereabouts that SW was intended to inspire young people to get out into the world and change it for the better. It definitely seemed like a cautionary remark.
Fair enough. At the same time, and to paraphrase Chris Nolan from last year (I'll add the link eventually), film shouldn't be all about preaching or lecturing to the viewer either. If you start making your movie with the goal of pushing change, the end product may well backfire. Change for the sake of change is better known as fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Mar 18, 2024 21:35:06 GMT
It would have taken taken less effort to watch the damn movie than it took to write that oddly defensive post.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Mar 18, 2024 21:38:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Mar 18, 2024 22:18:55 GMT
I agree. All art is essentially an opiate when it merely entertains without encouraging action or provoking thought; both catalysts for change. But GL once remarked at a convention in the 2010s or thereabouts that SW was intended to inspire young people to get out into the world and change it for the better. It definitely seemed like a cautionary remark.
Fair enough. At the same time, and to paraphrase Chris Nolan from last year (I'll add the link eventually), film shouldn't be all about preaching or lecturing to the viewer either. If you start making your movie with the goal of pushing change, the end product may well backfire. Change for the sake of change is better known as fashion.
Mass media conglomerates and their prize horses (i.e., Christopher Nolan, etc.) love to sow fear and apprehension toward art which embodies a sense of social responsibility outside of trendy tokenism. This is why Lucas' core ethos is so rare and invaluable. Still, Oppenheimer was something of a welcome aberration. Profuse Spanish Civil War references FTW! |
|
|
|
Post by Seeker of the Whills on Mar 19, 2024 10:56:11 GMT
I've tried to watch THX a couple of times, but never could finish it. I think I made it halfway through on my best try. It's not that I think it's bad or dislike it, it just fills me with a strange sensation of emptiness and anxiety. The movie deals with heavy issues and is incredibly prescient of our current society. It's almost hard for me to accept that the film was made by Lucas, because it is so unlike Star Wars. I'm going to try again, though. I will do a Lucas marathon of THX, American Graffiti and the four Indiana Jones films he produced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Mar 19, 2024 17:18:46 GMT
Okay, that's enough. From now on, all new accounts on this forum will require proof of having watched THX 1138 (all the way through) before being accepted.
Existing members that have admitted to the crime of not having watched the movie will be suspended until they publicly apologize to us and their family and rectify that fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Mar 19, 2024 20:56:06 GMT
We need to talk about THX-1138.
Not watch it, of course. Just talk about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Mar 19, 2024 22:43:24 GMT
Fair enough. At the same time, and to paraphrase Chris Nolan from last year (I'll add the link eventually), film shouldn't be all about preaching or lecturing to the viewer either. If you start making your movie with the goal of pushing change, the end product may well backfire. Change for the sake of change is better known as fashion.
Mass media conglomerates and their prize horses (i.e., Christopher Nolan, etc.) love to sow fear and apprehension toward art which embodies a sense of social responsibility outside of trendy tokenism. This is why Lucas' core ethos is so rare and invaluable.
Nolan gave his long time backer, Warner Bros., the middle finger after the treated him badly in 2020 with their silly rushed streaming service and lack of respect for cinema. He's not a hostage to any studio, hence why Oppenheimer was financed instead by Universal. One of the most eloquent speakers on the issues affecting the film industry today along with Scorsese.
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Mar 19, 2024 22:58:11 GMT
Mass media conglomerates and their prize horses (i.e., Christopher Nolan, etc.) love to sow fear and apprehension toward art which embodies a sense of social responsibility outside of trendy tokenism. This is why Lucas' core ethos is so rare and invaluable.
Nolan gave his long time backer, Warner Bros., the middle finger after the treated him badly in 2020 with their silly rushed streaming service and lack of respect for cinema. He's not a hostage to any studio, hence why Oppenheimer was financed instead by Universal. One of the most eloquent speakers on the issues affecting the film industry today along with Scorsese.
I wonder what exactly constitutes preaching or lecturing in Nolan's opinion? I mean, one could easily accuse George's Star Wars movies as being preachy simply because they have a moral compass. At what point does one cross the line into preachiness? |
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Mar 19, 2024 23:15:21 GMT
Mass media conglomerates and their prize horses (i.e., Christopher Nolan, etc.) love to sow fear and apprehension toward art which embodies a sense of social responsibility outside of trendy tokenism. This is why Lucas' core ethos is so rare and invaluable.
Nolan gave his long time backer, Warner Bros., the middle finger after the treated him badly in 2020 with their silly rushed streaming service and lack of respect for cinema. He's not a hostage to any studio, hence why Oppenheimer was financed instead by Universal. One of the most eloquent speakers on the issues affecting the film industry today along with Scorsese.
Hostage to the studio system. And yes, quite eloquent; as is Scorsese. But I'd never confuse that with service to a greater good. |
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Mar 20, 2024 4:08:49 GMT
Let us count some of the ways GL has expressed his (mostly) benevolent ethos: - Championed the democratization of filmmaking via development of digital tools and processes
- Elevated otherwise thrown-away pop art and storytelling
- Documented the making of his films in a wholly transparent manner
- Built (or building) a massive museum devoted to narrative art
- Started a foundation to devise ways of making education more effective
- Created film series that appeal to all ages and cultures
- Bankrolled a film about an obscure facet of WWII with a predominantly Black cast
- Produced a television series and accompanying documentaries about history
- Lampooned Hollywood as greedy, corporate-run and risk-averse countless times
- Lengthened the lives of terminally ill children (read here)
Those are just off the top of my head and I'm sure there are more examples!
How do Nolan and Scorsese stack up in comparison?
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Mar 20, 2024 21:23:29 GMT
Nolan gave his long time backer, Warner Bros., the middle finger after the treated him badly in 2020 with their silly rushed streaming service and lack of respect for cinema. He's not a hostage to any studio, hence why Oppenheimer was financed instead by Universal. One of the most eloquent speakers on the issues affecting the film industry today along with Scorsese.
I wonder what exactly constitutes preaching or lecturing in Nolan's opinion? I mean, one could easily accuse George's Star Wars movies as being preachy simply because they have a moral compass. At what point does one cross the line into preachiness?
No, I don't think Lucas film's are preachy. They don't go out of their way to lecture the audience, nothing is forced, it's all natural. While themes are definitely present, it's not like everyone finds them either. Star Wars can be enjoyed by anyone.
Nolan never specified any film or director in that interview. Perhaps something to press him on, should you ever get a chance to pop a question to him.
|
|
