Well. That was... Yes.
Jun. 13th, 2004 10:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7MC Paul Barman - [Excuse You]--- Do you all remember what i had to say about the third Matrix movie? That it was full of interesting premises, poignant philosophy, and pretty kick ass action? That it touched on a lot of themes that were imporant to me, and that, if you can look at the Potential of the thing, and extrapolate, on your own, then you would do well to watch it? Well, take all of that, and apply it to "The Chronicles of Riddick."
It was not, in my opinion, a Bad moive. It was not exactly what i'd call a "great" movie, and it's definately not for anyone who can't partition sections of a movie, from itself, but it was not bad. (Cranberries - [Zombie]). The Dialogue was bad. A lot of the acting was bad. The story was amazing, in my opinion, and the angles at which it was approached... Beautiful. Building the "Kwisatz Haderach" model, from a whole different angle. Yeah, i know i talk about Dune, a lot, but see the movie and you will NOT be able to deny it.
Jack Off Jill - [Cinnamon Spider]--- Just had a long conversation, with Seth, about the nature of Science Fiction, and what constitutes said, in filmic regions. Very interesting debate because, when it comes to an understanding of Science Fiction, i pretty much own it, in this house, where as Seth is the person, here, who first graduated with a film degree. Anyway, i see "Donnie Darko" as Sci-Fi/Philosophical Drama, he sees it differently. He also doesn't know, and doesn't really want to hear, the way in which science, philosophy, "Fantasy," and religion are all interwoven, in my head. (Carmina Burana - [Were Diu Werlt Alle Min]). So we are at an empasse, on that subject. It came about because he called "The Chronicles of Riddick," a "mish-mash of a bunch opf sci-fi themes," and tried to use that as a basis for saying was a bad movie. My retort was "Name me one sci-fi movie made, these days, that isn't."
The Police - [King of Pain]--- People are "deconstructionizing"-- as i'm going to call it-- everything, these days. You can't find a thing, these days, in which people don't want to use the systematic break-down of its parts as a way to say something they consider "Poignant" about society. And you know what? Sometimes i'm going to like that-- love it, even-- and sometimes i'm going to think a Coffee-House monkey sat down at a keyboard, and thought about his/her favourite "Genre," and decided to "Post-Modern" the HELL out of it.
Deconstruction is a useful tool, if you're doing it to truly learn and understand something about yourself, or about the world around you, and not to say "Look what I Can Do!" (Corvus Corax - [Tanzwut]). And no, i'm not Lord High Grammaton Of All Emotional Understanding And Demystification, but i know how something resonates, with me. And if it rings true-- whether it was well-acted, or well-scripted-- if the Story strikes me as thinking deeply and caring about an issue, and doing something to get to some place of understanding, either for the writer, the rest of the world, or Both, then i'm going to appreciate it. If, however, it rings as false, i'm going to feel, the rest of my days, that it could and should have been better handled, if only in the level of Care, applied to the project.
Again, i can't know, unequivocally, how someone felt about anything; i only have my observation, and their word. (Android Lust - [Another Void]). I've gone off, on rather a long tangent, about Post-Modernism, here, and that's because, even before the "Term" was founded, it existed. People would deconstruct things, all the time. It's called philosophy, science, and a drive toward understanding. You break something down, builid it up, break it down, again, and build it up as something new. It did exist, in literature, and, quite honestly, i think a lot of people are deconstroctionizing things, simply because they think it will be easy. Easier, at least, than doing something truly new... And i can't say that they're wrong, there.
Again, i can only go with how it resonates, with me. And what does it for you, may not be the thing that does it for me, and vice versa. That sounds like a perfect opener for a conversation, about the things that mean things, to the both of us.
Kate Bush - [Brazil]--- Innat Special?
"The Chronicles of Riddick" was not a horrible movie. I would recommend it if you like action, and would like to see how Dune went, in an alternate universe.
Later.
It was not, in my opinion, a Bad moive. It was not exactly what i'd call a "great" movie, and it's definately not for anyone who can't partition sections of a movie, from itself, but it was not bad. (Cranberries - [Zombie]). The Dialogue was bad. A lot of the acting was bad. The story was amazing, in my opinion, and the angles at which it was approached... Beautiful. Building the "Kwisatz Haderach" model, from a whole different angle. Yeah, i know i talk about Dune, a lot, but see the movie and you will NOT be able to deny it.
Jack Off Jill - [Cinnamon Spider]--- Just had a long conversation, with Seth, about the nature of Science Fiction, and what constitutes said, in filmic regions. Very interesting debate because, when it comes to an understanding of Science Fiction, i pretty much own it, in this house, where as Seth is the person, here, who first graduated with a film degree. Anyway, i see "Donnie Darko" as Sci-Fi/Philosophical Drama, he sees it differently. He also doesn't know, and doesn't really want to hear, the way in which science, philosophy, "Fantasy," and religion are all interwoven, in my head. (Carmina Burana - [Were Diu Werlt Alle Min]). So we are at an empasse, on that subject. It came about because he called "The Chronicles of Riddick," a "mish-mash of a bunch opf sci-fi themes," and tried to use that as a basis for saying was a bad movie. My retort was "Name me one sci-fi movie made, these days, that isn't."
The Police - [King of Pain]--- People are "deconstructionizing"-- as i'm going to call it-- everything, these days. You can't find a thing, these days, in which people don't want to use the systematic break-down of its parts as a way to say something they consider "Poignant" about society. And you know what? Sometimes i'm going to like that-- love it, even-- and sometimes i'm going to think a Coffee-House monkey sat down at a keyboard, and thought about his/her favourite "Genre," and decided to "Post-Modern" the HELL out of it.
Deconstruction is a useful tool, if you're doing it to truly learn and understand something about yourself, or about the world around you, and not to say "Look what I Can Do!" (Corvus Corax - [Tanzwut]). And no, i'm not Lord High Grammaton Of All Emotional Understanding And Demystification, but i know how something resonates, with me. And if it rings true-- whether it was well-acted, or well-scripted-- if the Story strikes me as thinking deeply and caring about an issue, and doing something to get to some place of understanding, either for the writer, the rest of the world, or Both, then i'm going to appreciate it. If, however, it rings as false, i'm going to feel, the rest of my days, that it could and should have been better handled, if only in the level of Care, applied to the project.
Again, i can't know, unequivocally, how someone felt about anything; i only have my observation, and their word. (Android Lust - [Another Void]). I've gone off, on rather a long tangent, about Post-Modernism, here, and that's because, even before the "Term" was founded, it existed. People would deconstruct things, all the time. It's called philosophy, science, and a drive toward understanding. You break something down, builid it up, break it down, again, and build it up as something new. It did exist, in literature, and, quite honestly, i think a lot of people are deconstroctionizing things, simply because they think it will be easy. Easier, at least, than doing something truly new... And i can't say that they're wrong, there.
Again, i can only go with how it resonates, with me. And what does it for you, may not be the thing that does it for me, and vice versa. That sounds like a perfect opener for a conversation, about the things that mean things, to the both of us.
Kate Bush - [Brazil]--- Innat Special?
"The Chronicles of Riddick" was not a horrible movie. I would recommend it if you like action, and would like to see how Dune went, in an alternate universe.
Later.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-13 08:14 pm (UTC)Good, thoughtful Sci-Fi<------------------------------------------->Public Box Office Goldmines
if any good sci fi does ever make the transition (2001, Solarias) to film, it usually ends up tanking. Why? Well, other than the gerneral lack of wanting to thinkness of the average movie goer, umm...yeah, thats why.
no subject
Re-Education. Teach them Everything, and let them choose what works best, for them. Then maybe people won't be afraid to think.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-13 09:01 pm (UTC)Always.
People dont like to think about the things that entertain them. Even I like the cheep laugh from time to time. And no matter what, I still love Con Air, because that WAS the front of a casino (it was the Sands, before destruction).
Shit blowing up == Good stuff.
But that doesnt mean movies shouldnt make you think, always. Just that the majority of movies which do well wolnt make people think about anything but having a good time at the movies, and eating cheep pseudobutter on stale popcorn. Other movies can make you think. Summer block busters never will.
no subject
Sigh and bah.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-13 09:35 pm (UTC)And if everything didnt make you think, Id worry if you were sick.
no subject
no subject
Date: 2004-06-13 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
no subject
Date: 2004-06-14 06:06 am (UTC)no subject