Goblet of Fire
-
I see a man living in a world of silly assumptions making a fool of himself.Originally posted by iveco:I see a Californian putting his foot in his mouth.
-
Well, you do make assumptions too, dun you? Cos you havent watched any of them yet, how would you know they are as bad as you think?Originally posted by philia:I see a man living in a world of silly assumptions making a fool of himself.
So doesn't that make the things you said in your first post in this thread, to be merely assumptions?
-
To do what? Movie audience have every single right to criticize or compliment a movie. Do you think it is more justifiable for audience to sit through one whole movie with a blank mind? We, as audience, are the judges when it comes to movies.Originally posted by DriftingGuy:Like what they say: Its easier to criticise than to do it. Talk easy, do hard. But then thats what an online forum is for
-
Would you be able to prove that my assumptions are wrong? There are exhaustive reviews and trailers on the movies. It is hard to avoid chancing upon them not matter how much you dislike.Originally posted by rainee:Well, you do make assumptions too, dun you? Cos you havent watched any of them yet, how would you know they are as bad as you think?
So doesn't that make the things you said in your first post in this thread, to be merely assumptions? -
Harry Potter has no whatsoever potential to become artistic. I shall not bore you with the detail, because if I were to argue upon it, I would have to start watching the movie which is a displeasure to me.Originally posted by ch33k:Many shows can be classified as entertaining or literary. In my opinion, both entertainment or a literary ('art') acclaim can be appreciated aesthetically. Art is a form of expression, in any. I think it would be quite reasonable and objective to say that entertaining, thrilling or literary shows do not belong within a specific spectrum akin to most aspects of expressionism.
Harry Potter shows have the POTENTIAL to become artistic when we apply our rationalistic ideals to the directors intent in showing what he has and in the way he chose. Claiming that plot, ('depth'?) or themes do not exist, or have failed to accentuate, is probably due to the lack of attention and the exploitation of stereotypical beliefs that artistic plays are akin to that of Tennessee Williams' "Glass Menagerie" or eugene O'neils' "Long Days Journey into Night".
In other words, the KINETIC key is important to the keyhole. If you do not actively persue the 'art' in the show, or for anything at all, you won't get it. That is perhaps why the show seems innocuous to your artistic senses.
I hope you understand that i'm not saying this to get back at you.[/list][/quote]
You do notice that my responses towards the movie is solely personal. What is worthless cobbles to others may be art to another. -
Well, the reviews are just written from others' point of view. And the trailers do not represent the whole movie, and there are only a few of them, just that you kept chancing upon the same one over and over again. But still, they do not represent the whole movie.Originally posted by philia:Would you be able to prove that my assumptions are wrong? There are exhaustive reviews and trailers on the movies. It is hard to avoid chancing upon them not matter how much you dislike.
So I do not take those to be proof that a certain movie is bad. I won't rely on them alone to make a judgement. Like a lot of critics found that the Butterfly Effects was bad, but personally I think it was rather a nice movie.
So watch it first before you go around making those assumptions, and don't base it upon what others think, base it on your own opinion. -
You should know that there is no concrete definition to Art. It comes in myriads of forms and its description will never satisfy all of its admirers.Originally posted by stoty:By the way Pulp Fiction and City Of God are two of my favourite movies of all time. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate Batman Begins coz its "shallow" or whatever.
What's your definition of an "Art" film anyway? I find it such a pretentious term.
My personal definition of an art movie is a movie that is exhaustively layered with metaphysical content coupled with complex conceits and abundant usage of allegorical imageries. A movie that requires critical thinking and analyzation. Most of the time, arthouse adopt sprezzaturas whereby audience find themselves emotionally attached to the movie. A few examples are: In the Mood for Love, Farewell My Concubine, Riri Shushu no Subete and etc. -
Did you watch the movie? If so, please tell me if I am wrong in the following comments:Originally posted by rainee:Well, the reviews are just written from others' point of view. And the trailers do not represent the whole movie, and there are only a few of them, just that you kept chancing upon the same one over and over again. But still, they do not represent the whole movie.
So I do not take those to be proof that a certain movie is bad. I won't rely on them alone to make a judgement. Like a lot of critics found that the Butterfly Effects was bad, but personally I think it was rather a nice movie.
So watch it first before you go around making those assumptions, and don't base it upon what others think, base it on your own opinion.
Here are some of the reasons why HP deservers its low-rating:
- lack of depth
- failure to relate its theme to the society
- character development is rock bottom
- inane monster vs humans
- unconvincing and empty plot
- good ol' good guy vs bad guy good guy wins and happy ever after
- there is little directional skill since the majority of movie is made up of SFX.
And by the way, I did read Harry Potter and, on a note, I am still very guilty of myself for squandering away a small part of my life on that book (even if it is only a few chapters). I, therefore, cannot bring myself to watch the movie and re-enact the mental torture again. -
Sometimes, after a long n hard day at work, we go to the movies jus for some pure mindless entertainment to take our mind off work.Originally posted by philia:...A movie that requires critical thinking and analyzation...
When that happens, while u consider shows like the 40yr old virgin, Disney movies n even Harry Potter may be lacking of depth, have zero character development, or fail to relate its theme to society, etc, they are jus the perfect thing to watch, to laugh away our burdens and worries for 2hrs or so, and then we leave the cinema feeling better than before.
Laughter is known to be the best medicine after all.
At least personally for me, the last thing I need after a week of slogging at work, is a movie that requires critical thinking and analyzation. More often than not, I will either fall asleep watching the sombre art flim, or emerge from the cinema feeling even more tired.
There is a time and place for everything, be it Harry Potter or Pulp Fiction.
Oh, and one last thing...maybe u should stop being so anal and acting all high class and artsy fartsy.
U may think that batman, spiderman, X-men or watever men maybe be dumb now but were u not entertained by it once upon a time when u were still a child? -
I know a movie exhaustively layered with metaphysical content - Messages of courage under fire, friendship, love, trust, belief in yourself. IT has abundant usage of imagery if you look at how the cartoonist changes style when it comes to the villain, and how colour and editing is used during confrontation scenes, Critical thinking and analyzation? I am sure a 7 year old finds the movie deeply philosophical and will think about its hidden messages, and as for sprezzaturas, the way which the artist presents his message definitely demonstrates an innocent artlessless to appeal to both children and adults.Originally posted by philia:You should know that there is no concrete definition to Art. It comes in myriads of forms and its description will never satisfy all of its admirers.
My personal definition of an art movie is a movie that is exhaustively layered with metaphysical content coupled with complex conceits and abundant usage of allegorical imageries. A movie that requires critical thinking and analyzation. Most of the time, arthouse adopt sprezzaturas whereby audience find themselves emotionally attached to the movie. A few examples are: In the Mood for Love, Farewell My Concubine, Riri Shushu no Subete and etc.
It's The Power Puff Girls - The Movie! -
If you have a problem with art movies, please point out their weak points. Using adjectives like "anal" only highlight your level of intelligence and maturity. I have never deem people who find pleasure in watching make-believe fantasy as anal. Such vulgar display of arrogance by you is atrocious.Originally posted by elawee:Oh, and one last thing...maybe u should stop being so anal and acting all high class and artsy fartsy.
U may think that batman, spiderman, X-men or watever men maybe be dumb now but were u not entertained by it once upon a time when u were still a child?
I watch what I like and I personally find Harry Potter as an insult to the audience's intelligence. If you had the compulsion to make an attack, please aim at the movies, not the audience.
Furthermore, it does not take a "high-class" person to appreciate art. -
What you think as that might be entertaining to others.Originally posted by philia:Did you watch the movie? If so, please tell me if I am wrong in the following comments:
Here are some of the reasons why HP deservers its low-rating:
- lack of depth
- failure to relate its theme to the society
- character development is rock bottom
- inane monster vs humans
- unconvincing and empty plot
- good ol' good guy vs bad guy good guy wins and happy ever after
- there is little directional skill since the majority of movie is made up of SFX.
And by the way, I did read Harry Potter and, on a note, I am still very guilty of myself for squandering away a small part of my life on that book (even if it is only a few chapters). I, therefore, cannot bring myself to watch the movie and re-enact the mental torture again.
Not everyone likes to watch a heavy film all the time. You might find those films cultured and artistic, but most of us just want to watch something entertaining after a long day at work or school. -
What makes you think Disney movies are not arts?Originally posted by philia:If you have a problem with art movies, please point out their weak points. Using adjectives like "anal" only highlight your level of intelligence and maturity. I have never deem people who find pleasure in watching make-believe fantasy as anal. Such vulgar display of arrogance by you is atrocious.
I watch what I like and I personally find Harry Potter as an insult to the audience's intelligence. If you had the compulsion to make an attack, please aim at the movies, not the audience.
Furthermore, it does not take a "high-class" person to appreciate art.
Art is not just something that contains heavy plot, "big" words that almost no one would understand, etc. A movie can be considered good and a work of art even if it is simple but when it can reach out to many people's hearts. -
YupOriginally posted by rainee:What you think as that might be entertaining to others.
Not everyone likes to watch a heavy film all the time. You might find those films cultured and artistic, but most of us just want to watch something entertaining after a long day at work or school.
as I have been stressing, to each his own. Furthermore, I do highlight that my opinions are individually reserved to me and only I. -
I think you should read my definition on art movies. I have already highlighted that there is no concrete definition to art. It comes in myriads of forms and its description will never satisfy all of its admirers.Originally posted by rainee:What makes you think Disney movies are not arts?
Art is not just something that contains heavy plot, "big" words that almost no one would understand, etc. A movie can be considered good and a work of art even if it is simple but when it can reach out to many people's hearts. -
are you sure?? what you can't see doesn't mean it's not there~!!Originally posted by philia:The world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics. -
[quote]Originally posted by philia:
[b]
The world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics.
b][/quote]
It is strange... for someone who claims to appreciate imageries and allegories, why you kept picking on the broomsticks and monsters - basically on the point of 'realism' in the art. But, the message of any piece of art does not have to be bonded to a realistic setting.
For the matter, the world does not revolve around Old Shanghai (any longer) [In the mood for love] or Chinese opera (Farewell My concubine) for most people. They have as much realism for many people as 'broomsticks and silly magics'.
You may say "well at least those stuff were real BEFORE", but broomsticks are extremely real last I checked and having them do all these interesting things can be very tongue-in-cheek postmodern! *heheh*
and as for magic... its something I would never dare to say don't exist in the world... especially if you have been touched by an art piece.
I don't think anyone is saying you have no right to critique - everyone is a critic nowadays. BUT pointing out to you that comparing a movie like Harry Potter to a serious art film is a laughable premise to begin with. It's like comparing entertaining Comics with the Rennaisance masters and complaining why the comics have none of the techniques of the latter.
(err. though I wld disagree with u that films like In the Mood for Love and Farewell My Concubine belong to the 'serious art films' category to begin with but like you said, that's my perogative for critique yeah *heheh*) -
you sounded like you are critisizing people who watch harry porter more than the movie itself.Originally posted by philia:What do you mean by acting deep? The author of the thread was complaining on how the newspapers were lashing out high ratings for "boring movies". It is quite obvious that most arthouse movies are "boring". Like I said, it is my right to criticize Hairy Porter whichever way I want to because in the first place, audience do not sit through a movie with a blank mind. The director expect us to digest the movie and give judgements.
It is just not my cup of tea to see a kid flying on a broom fighting monsters. Whatever your cup of teas are, I do not care. To each his own.
-
Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:
I think you have literally misinterpreted my statement. When I say the world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics, I was making out a point in which one should also explore different genres of movies.
[quote]Originally posted by philia:
[b][b]
The world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics.
b][/quote]
It is strange... for someone who claims to appreciate imageries and allegories, why you kept picking on the broomsticks and monsters - basically on the point of 'realism' in the art. But, the message of any piece of art does not have to be bonded to a realistic setting.
For the matter, the world does not revolve around Old Shanghai (any longer) [In the mood for love] or Chinese opera (Farewell My concubine) for most people. They have as much realism for many people as 'broomsticks and silly magics'.
You may say "well at least those stuff were real BEFORE", but broomsticks are extremely real last I checked and having them do all these interesting things can be very tongue-in-cheek postmodern! *heheh*
and as for magic... its something I would never dare to say don't exist in the world... especially if you have been touched by an art piece.
I don't think anyone is saying you have no right to critique - everyone is a critic nowadays. BUT pointing out to you that comparing a movie like Harry Potter to a serious art film is a laughable premise to begin with. It's like comparing entertaining Comics with the Rennaisance masters and complaining why the comics have none of the techniques of the latter.
(err. though I wld disagree with u that films like In the Mood for Love and Farewell My Concubine belong to the 'serious art films' category to begin with but like you said, that's my perogative for critique yeah *heheh*)[/b]
My initial comparison between Harry Potter and serious art film was in response to the author's following statement:
Anyway, i think the critics of life newspaper, I read daily are dumb, they suck. They give boring movies -alot of them- high ratings and great movies aka harry potter have low ratings. Which sucks. Anyway everyone I know says it's good. Maybe the critics are old and only watch shows with people playing with their slippers.
Drama and arthouse genre has many times been labelled as "boring movies".
I would not even try to draw a comparison between Zhang Yimou's or Wong Kar Wai's pieces with Harry Potter out of the blue had I not come across such comment. -
Wow so many replies, no matter what, it's still my favourite! And watch first before you criticize, unless you wanna be like me.
I'm going to catch it again later, in the afternoon with my friends, and again on monday with my other friends. And once with my family. Maybe once with another 2 girls. Yea thats it i think.
O well. My friends are all lovin the movie. We say we love it! In reality it's because we love it!
-
I did say that attacking the movie and attacking the audience are two different matters. If my comments on Harry Potter carry such connotations as you said, then you must have quite a wild imagination.Originally posted by Ito_^:you sounded like you are critisizing people who watch harry porter more than the movie itself. -
harry potter movies are like any other commercial films out there. they are catered to the mass audiences, their main purpose is to make a film most of the people want to see, to make big bucks at the boxoffice.
it's a blockbuster that one watch to enjoy, to relax, to take their mind off work, it's not made to win oscars or anything. so don't compare to it with those artistic or full-of-depth movies.
futhermore, different people got different taste, the films u like, other people might not like them, or vice versa. if u don't like it, fine, sound out your thoughts but don't criticize like as though it is so worthless, so penniless like that. -
I started my comparison in response to the author's comment about how "boring movies" suck and the newspapers should give higher ratings to Harry Potter.Originally posted by Gordonator:harry potter movies are like any other commercial films out there. they are catered to the mass audiences, their main purpose is to make a film most of the people want to see, to make big bucks at the boxoffice.
it's a blockbuster that one watch to enjoy, to relax, to take their mind off work, it's not made to win oscars or anything. so don't compare to it with those artistic or full-of-depth movies.
futhermore, different people got different taste, the films u like, other people might not like them, or vice versa. if u don't like it, fine, sound out your thoughts but don't criticize like as though it is so worthless, so penniless like that.
Anyway, I did say that my opinions on Harry Potter are solely on a personal level and that different people have different taste. -
u are a bloody asshole u know that? fine u like harry potter movies i understand, and i respect that. but must u go around creating all those threads? can't u just all your stuffs in 1 single thread?Originally posted by BizarreRocksD12:Wow so many replies, no matter what, it's still my favourite! And watch first before you criticize, unless you wanna be like me.
I'm going to catch it again later, in the afternoon with my friends, and again on monday with my other friends. And once with my family. Maybe once with another 2 girls. Yea thats it i think.
O well. My friends are all lovin the movie. We say we love it! In reality it's because we love it!
must u go around telling everybody u are going to watch it again today, watch it again on monday, watch it over and over again?
just what are u trying to prove? what's is your point in all this? what do u want all of us to think of u? -
Unless of course, BizarreRocksD12 is trying to replicate Rahmania/Mr.Soh/signup's attempts to promote ARR.