I've downloaded this three times, and each time it runs slowly on my machine, although I'm not sure why. It's strange, because it is an .avi file (I downloaded the big and then the small one, to see if there was a difference), and this is the first time I've had an .avi file jump frames.
I also tried the Quicktime one, but it never loaded up.
It looks cool though! I think I would really like the style if it worked. Cool images.
I'm pretty excited about this, mostly for Christopher Priest getting a chance at what could be a decent movie. Here's here to more films in this particular genre that are done with a shred of decency.
I'm not referencing movies bought on a personal basis. I'm speaking more to the movies that are on television and that are secondarily seen outside of the parent's permission.
I have a really good friend, and even though she is nineteen, her parents still refuse to own movies they consider to have bad content. I know a lot of people like this, so I am not disagreeing with you Jim. But unless you are an extremely controlling parent, you may find your girls have exposure to other films outside of your control.
Most people's reaction to this is: "Yeah, so what? That's life. You need to accept it, and not complain about it. What, do you want to destroy all creative expression, just to fit your own little box? They will watch the bad stuff anyways, there is nothing you can do about it."
There are two things you can do about it:
1 - you can discuss with your kids what is going on in movies. Yes, you won't always be able to protect them, but you can equip them so that they can protect themselves.
2 - You can buy or make edited movies, and have a little less worry on your mind when it comes to exposing your children in your own house to some of the more degrading aspects of humanity. Sanitized movies do make a statement. That's not to say that in the future your kids won't want to see the real thing. I'm not sure the point of sanitized movies is to erase "bad things" from existence. It seems to me more than sanitized movies are merely a protection tool for parents who want to concern themselves with other things in raising their children.
Or perhaps you are right and parents who buy sanitized movies are just being lazy.
Oh, and by the way... I've been really surprised at a lot of family films recently. There has been increased exposure to underage children using violence, drugs, and explitives, for no point at all but to do it. It's not uncommon for some kid to yell out "sh*t" or make another kid bleed for no apparent purpose except gratutitous violence. I think the trend started back in the early nineties, and has been getting worse ever since. I've always been quite surprised that some of the content of children's films goes as far as perhaps not graphically displaying lewd sexual acts, but insintuating in the dialogue of things like that happening between children.
Call me a Conservative Prat (C.P.), but isn't that bordering on a little obsessive?
Does that mean I should be offended that you are offended at my being offended?
I don't think it's an argument of Middle America versus Outer America. I have family who is Middle America, and although they have moral scruples, they own hundreds of films, while I have friends in Outer America who are cultural isolationists (at least from movies) but agree wholeheartedly with the values propogated within Hollywood films.
Like I said in my post, "I am not positing to create a scenario of censorship (read on)..."
In a way, Hollywood is doing what you are saying, although not in such explicit terms. It is more subtle, something under the radar. I don't even believe they are doing it with bad intentions, but it is happening and that is why there is a reaction. Hollywood has always had a peculiar culture, but never before have they had so much power of the home and hearth.
When my mother was growing up (she is in her sixties) she wasn't even allowed to watch movies. Times have changed. Parents groom their children on television, we are surrounded by the pantheon of Hollywood in books, in magazines, in advertisements, on airplanes, on buses, in cars, in taxies, in lobbies of buildings, on the radio, on our computers, during dinner, after dinner, on rainy days and in libraries.
But it is not so apparent that it flashes in front of you and goes on a streak. Rather is like a smoothly buttered piece of bread, always there, makes everything taste a bit brighter and saltier. If you deny Hollywood's impact in society, then perhaps you (not talking to you AJDaGreat specifically, but a general comment) are the social outcast.
Like I said, we can be cultural isolationists, or we can just accept what is given us. It's not really comprehensible to envision an America where one isn't confronted with television shows and movies, items that are based on television shows and movies. Our society is thickly positioned on the concept of TV, and if you are one of those special individuals who isn't scripted into this elaborate economy by personal choice, you are in the minority.
I agree with you that there is the right not to buy the movie. I myself practice that right, although few people I know do. Now perhaps this is because my circle of friends subscribe to the system by choice, but if I were to ask them if they had ever questioned the system, I'm sure most of them would say they hadn't. Or at least, they subscribe minimistically, accepting a part of the content given them and rejecting another part. But their support of the system allows it to propagate, and since most people do not raise loud voices to protestations unless it threatens their bare survival, either of their physical or philosophical natures, the system is allowed to propagate into society for love of profit.
Of course, you can always state that I am only assuming that, since I haven't done the research, and that hunches are only hunches, not based on any accuracy.
If I say that artists should maintain a sense of code, that would be ridiculous. They do already. But just because they accept a certain code does not mean we need to. Yes, art is personalized, but movies are more than personalized. They are big-budget, big economy. Wal-mart sells thousands of movies a day. People watch thousands of movies a day. Dead-Man's Chest made 132 million in three days. It is not like buying a painting - it is staple of society, and a position of power. Although I may decry the current status of Hollywood's culture and say that they should take responsibility for their art, there is little that I can do except state my opinion in the face of such magnitude and sheer force.
But thankfully we have forums such as this in which to express our soapboxes.
So you believe that kids getting exposed to Jason chopping the arms off of teenagers without any clothes on for no reason but sheer anonymous gratuity, or Bruce repeating over and over "Yippee-kay-aye, mother(beep)er!" while mowing down terrorist after terrorist using a huge arsenal of weapons, including pistols, machine guns, knives, to breaking necks (I think he manages to murder eight people in one evening single-handedly, but I could have my numbers messed up) is necessary good education for children?
Is that really truth? (The correct answer is no - it's stodgy artistic license; stories written to bring out our primal natures of being thrilled at mutilation, death, and the ancient art of warfare. As if we don't get enough of that already...)
Of course, if you sit down with your kids and explain to them that people like Jason do not exist, it is not ok to borrow Daddy's chainsaw and act like you are killing adolescent girls, and people generally do not scream explitives unless they are going to get into an auto accident or are going through extreme psychological trauma, then perhaps it is ok to let them watch such things.
My parents had very little control over the stuff I watched. Perhaps that is because they are bad parents, perhaps it was because I was a bad child, or perhaps because it is a bad world. I saw my first "R" film at nine (I think it was Leviathan). Now, I was lucky to have parents who did understand right from wrong, and could help me muddle through the thick waters of Hollywood. I wish I could say the same for other children, but I'm leaning towards the *not*. Both of my parents worked out of the home, so they were around and had time for us, and they saw it their duty to teach my mother and I values that they felt were necessary for living. But they were rare - most parents cannot work out of the home. Society doesn't allow a majority of workers to be homebuilders at the same time.
I've headed off course, so I'll shut up and let you respond before I near the Cape of Storms and get really blown away.
I wonder if, as you say, this battle in the public arena is being fought on the grounds of morality, if in the courtroom such contexts even come into play.
It's strange sometimes to imagine such a gap between economics and values, but the way law is set up it is *supposed* to eliminate judgements so that pure logic can be discussed, logic that is not based on philosophy but on positive and negative rules garnered from declarative statements. It's a language game.
I don't disagree with you that raising kids is tough. My question is why are artists making it so much tougher? And why be so objectionable towards people's efforts to try and figure out positive ways to define how their families use their time?
I realize that parents in all different ages have had different things to worry about, and that they have overcome. I have no doubt that at least, a certain portion of today's parents will overcome. My only worry is that against such a colossal giant (big money comes to mind), is it really fair?
Those LJ links were really useful. Thanks.
Wow, just found the link to Scaruffi's stuff. Thanks!
It is rather amazing. He should be a listologist!
I've downloaded this three times, and each time it runs slowly on my machine, although I'm not sure why. It's strange, because it is an .avi file (I downloaded the big and then the small one, to see if there was a difference), and this is the first time I've had an .avi file jump frames.
I also tried the Quicktime one, but it never loaded up.
It looks cool though! I think I would really like the style if it worked. Cool images.
I'm pretty excited about this, mostly for Christopher Priest getting a chance at what could be a decent movie. Here's here to more films in this particular genre that are done with a shred of decency.
I'm not referencing movies bought on a personal basis. I'm speaking more to the movies that are on television and that are secondarily seen outside of the parent's permission.
I have a really good friend, and even though she is nineteen, her parents still refuse to own movies they consider to have bad content. I know a lot of people like this, so I am not disagreeing with you Jim. But unless you are an extremely controlling parent, you may find your girls have exposure to other films outside of your control.
Most people's reaction to this is: "Yeah, so what? That's life. You need to accept it, and not complain about it. What, do you want to destroy all creative expression, just to fit your own little box? They will watch the bad stuff anyways, there is nothing you can do about it."
There are two things you can do about it:
1 - you can discuss with your kids what is going on in movies. Yes, you won't always be able to protect them, but you can equip them so that they can protect themselves.
2 - You can buy or make edited movies, and have a little less worry on your mind when it comes to exposing your children in your own house to some of the more degrading aspects of humanity. Sanitized movies do make a statement. That's not to say that in the future your kids won't want to see the real thing. I'm not sure the point of sanitized movies is to erase "bad things" from existence. It seems to me more than sanitized movies are merely a protection tool for parents who want to concern themselves with other things in raising their children.
Or perhaps you are right and parents who buy sanitized movies are just being lazy.
Oh, and by the way... I've been really surprised at a lot of family films recently. There has been increased exposure to underage children using violence, drugs, and explitives, for no point at all but to do it. It's not uncommon for some kid to yell out "sh*t" or make another kid bleed for no apparent purpose except gratutitous violence. I think the trend started back in the early nineties, and has been getting worse ever since. I've always been quite surprised that some of the content of children's films goes as far as perhaps not graphically displaying lewd sexual acts, but insintuating in the dialogue of things like that happening between children.
Call me a Conservative Prat (C.P.), but isn't that bordering on a little obsessive?
You'd rather the world end?
Do you see no good in it?
Does that mean I should be offended that you are offended at my being offended?
I don't think it's an argument of Middle America versus Outer America. I have family who is Middle America, and although they have moral scruples, they own hundreds of films, while I have friends in Outer America who are cultural isolationists (at least from movies) but agree wholeheartedly with the values propogated within Hollywood films.
Like I said in my post, "I am not positing to create a scenario of censorship (read on)..."
In a way, Hollywood is doing what you are saying, although not in such explicit terms. It is more subtle, something under the radar. I don't even believe they are doing it with bad intentions, but it is happening and that is why there is a reaction. Hollywood has always had a peculiar culture, but never before have they had so much power of the home and hearth.
When my mother was growing up (she is in her sixties) she wasn't even allowed to watch movies. Times have changed. Parents groom their children on television, we are surrounded by the pantheon of Hollywood in books, in magazines, in advertisements, on airplanes, on buses, in cars, in taxies, in lobbies of buildings, on the radio, on our computers, during dinner, after dinner, on rainy days and in libraries.
But it is not so apparent that it flashes in front of you and goes on a streak. Rather is like a smoothly buttered piece of bread, always there, makes everything taste a bit brighter and saltier. If you deny Hollywood's impact in society, then perhaps you (not talking to you AJDaGreat specifically, but a general comment) are the social outcast.
Like I said, we can be cultural isolationists, or we can just accept what is given us. It's not really comprehensible to envision an America where one isn't confronted with television shows and movies, items that are based on television shows and movies. Our society is thickly positioned on the concept of TV, and if you are one of those special individuals who isn't scripted into this elaborate economy by personal choice, you are in the minority.
I agree with you that there is the right not to buy the movie. I myself practice that right, although few people I know do. Now perhaps this is because my circle of friends subscribe to the system by choice, but if I were to ask them if they had ever questioned the system, I'm sure most of them would say they hadn't. Or at least, they subscribe minimistically, accepting a part of the content given them and rejecting another part. But their support of the system allows it to propagate, and since most people do not raise loud voices to protestations unless it threatens their bare survival, either of their physical or philosophical natures, the system is allowed to propagate into society for love of profit.
Of course, you can always state that I am only assuming that, since I haven't done the research, and that hunches are only hunches, not based on any accuracy.
If I say that artists should maintain a sense of code, that would be ridiculous. They do already. But just because they accept a certain code does not mean we need to. Yes, art is personalized, but movies are more than personalized. They are big-budget, big economy. Wal-mart sells thousands of movies a day. People watch thousands of movies a day. Dead-Man's Chest made 132 million in three days. It is not like buying a painting - it is staple of society, and a position of power. Although I may decry the current status of Hollywood's culture and say that they should take responsibility for their art, there is little that I can do except state my opinion in the face of such magnitude and sheer force.
But thankfully we have forums such as this in which to express our soapboxes.
My initial problem was I only played Vice City, so I didn't recognize the getup.
28: Grand Theft Auto 3
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what a floralist does for a living...
So are you saying that movies are divided into just violent and kid movies?
Do you really think that people today are idiots for wanting to see current movies?
How does the artist get sued if their film isn't released?
You seem to be surrounded by snobs and idiots, by the way. Curious world.
So you believe that kids getting exposed to Jason chopping the arms off of teenagers without any clothes on for no reason but sheer anonymous gratuity, or Bruce repeating over and over "Yippee-kay-aye, mother(beep)er!" while mowing down terrorist after terrorist using a huge arsenal of weapons, including pistols, machine guns, knives, to breaking necks (I think he manages to murder eight people in one evening single-handedly, but I could have my numbers messed up) is necessary good education for children?
Is that really truth? (The correct answer is no - it's stodgy artistic license; stories written to bring out our primal natures of being thrilled at mutilation, death, and the ancient art of warfare. As if we don't get enough of that already...)
Of course, if you sit down with your kids and explain to them that people like Jason do not exist, it is not ok to borrow Daddy's chainsaw and act like you are killing adolescent girls, and people generally do not scream explitives unless they are going to get into an auto accident or are going through extreme psychological trauma, then perhaps it is ok to let them watch such things.
My parents had very little control over the stuff I watched. Perhaps that is because they are bad parents, perhaps it was because I was a bad child, or perhaps because it is a bad world. I saw my first "R" film at nine (I think it was Leviathan). Now, I was lucky to have parents who did understand right from wrong, and could help me muddle through the thick waters of Hollywood. I wish I could say the same for other children, but I'm leaning towards the *not*. Both of my parents worked out of the home, so they were around and had time for us, and they saw it their duty to teach my mother and I values that they felt were necessary for living. But they were rare - most parents cannot work out of the home. Society doesn't allow a majority of workers to be homebuilders at the same time.
I've headed off course, so I'll shut up and let you respond before I near the Cape of Storms and get really blown away.
You make a lot of really interesting points.
I wonder if, as you say, this battle in the public arena is being fought on the grounds of morality, if in the courtroom such contexts even come into play.
It's strange sometimes to imagine such a gap between economics and values, but the way law is set up it is *supposed* to eliminate judgements so that pure logic can be discussed, logic that is not based on philosophy but on positive and negative rules garnered from declarative statements. It's a language game.
I don't disagree with you that raising kids is tough. My question is why are artists making it so much tougher? And why be so objectionable towards people's efforts to try and figure out positive ways to define how their families use their time?
I realize that parents in all different ages have had different things to worry about, and that they have overcome. I have no doubt that at least, a certain portion of today's parents will overcome. My only worry is that against such a colossal giant (big money comes to mind), is it really fair?