Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - DGMacphee

#981
It's hard to define art, IMO, since all of it is so subjective.

One definition I heard is that "art" is a personal reflection using a creative medium, whereas a "craft" is a creative interpretation for someone else.

For example, most making of furniture is a craft because most of it is designed with a customer in mind (a chair was deisgned for people to sit, a table so they could eat at). Whereas Van Gogh painted pictures mainly as an expression of himself, rather than painting something for a customer. Which is why he only sold two paintings in his life.

Tattooists, IMO, are doing a craft, because they're creating something to a customer's specifications. Sure, there are tattooists who do "body art" for exhibitions, but these are few.

Even if tattooing is a craft, this doesn't reduce the substance of the work. A craft still has a lot of creative expression -- in some cases more so that art does. But people have got to eat, so they've got to sell something.

After her divorce, my mother used to date an artist. He did both artwork and craftwork. His craftwork included doing sculptures of Warner Brothers cartoon characters (Tweety, Duffy Duck) for Movie World on the Gold Coast here in Queensland. His artwork included these amazing Venus De Milo-like sculptures that were naked bodies with different sexual conitations. One statue had a phallic-looking tap instead of genitals. Another had female genitals all over her body (arms, chest, face). It's was pretty confronting stuff, but very cool stuff. But they didn't sell very well. I mean, the type of people with the money to buy those statues were fairly reluctant to have vagina-statues in their homes. So, the money he made to survive came from stuff like the Warner Brothers stuff. Whereas, the genitals statues were something he did for himself.
#982
That picture alone will fuel my awesome-powered rocketship until I reach Alpha Centauri!
#983
Quote from: rodekill on Fri 30/07/2004 17:51:26
The tattoos are a different story. Each one represents something personal to me. An important time in my life, for example. The content isn't important, it's what it reminds me of.
I didn't get them to show them off, and actually, it's a little awkward when people ask about them, just because people don't really get it when I explain it like that.

What they remind you of, eh? Hmmm... If that's the case, I wonder what they could look like...

#984
Perhaps you two could take time out from telling people they have problems and answer Ali's question.
#985
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Thu 29/07/2004 08:04:47
Quote from: shbazjinkens on Thu 29/07/2004 07:46:49
If the world had the same attitude toward preventing pollution, world hunger, violence, and disease that you have toward preserving the sanctity of movies, humans would be set for a long time to come.Ã,  :P

Don't get sanctimonious on me, Blender-boy!
#986
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Thu 29/07/2004 07:23:58
Fight Club did something similar, except its critique on consumerism was a little harsher than Josie and the Pussycats.
#987
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Thu 29/07/2004 07:19:31
Look, LGM, it's got nothing to do with me winning an argument. I'm no genius. I'm practically a professional dickhead.

But if there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who are so apathetic that they accept that Hollywood is going to shit without any major concern whatsoever. If that's the case, Hollywood is just going to make more stupid movies with stupider product placements. It won't get better unless people (i.e. emerging artists and the movie-going public) do something about.

And I can't abide with someone being so apathetic that they accept a soft drink ad in Middle-Earth. If they believe that, then the Bible might as well have ads in it too.

But like I said many times before in this thread, I'm very naive.

blah blah Evian blah
#988
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Thu 29/07/2004 07:12:55
shbaz, LGM wants to be a director. If such is the case, then he should take films seriously. All the best directors do.
#989
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Thu 29/07/2004 06:54:41
QuoteAnd of course, I was exxagerating heavily on the Pepsi thing. It'd piss me off if they did that, but it wouldn't ruin the whole damn trilogy for me.. I'm really not picky at ALL.

Once again, you've destroyed any credibility whatsoever in film area of film. Only this time, you not only destroyed it. You raped and defiled it too.

QuoteI know you all dislike my laid back views on certain issues, but it's rather pointless to bitch about little blips in an otherwise decent film.

Those little blips are what makes it a souless piece of bitch-trash. And it's not your laid back views I dislike, but more so your acceptance of something that's soulless and whorish.

QuoteAs the saying goes, "Arguing over the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

The mantra of people who pussy-out of most internet arguments. Besides, if you truely believe that, how come you've launched into such a long tirade with your last post?

QuoteYes.. I understand the upset over the whole title fiasco.. I just choose not to fuss over it; simply because, there really is no point to. Nothing you can do or say will change the fact that the movie is already made. It's done with. You can't change it anymore, no matter how powerful you are (unless you're George Lucas.)Ã,  So what you have to do is learn to accept it, or boycott it, and move on.

That's just the type of apathetic pandering I'd expect from someone who wouldn't be bothered by Pepsi products in a Lord of the Rings film.

This is why most of the films released today are shitty. Because people with this view are okay with corperate whoring. Whatever happened to quality? Whatever happened to "Not a single frame was wasted"?

Christ, you want to be a filmmaker? LGM, if you become a filmmaker with this kind of attitude, let me give you some advice: you'll be nothing but a sell-out hack. No one will remember you. You'll live life without any balls.

QuoteIf this movie were to be called Hardwired, or Robots!, or How Robots Almost Took Over the World, or what have you.. It would've been bitched and complained about for "stealing" ideas from Asimov. You just can't win. I've thought all of that through, and that is exactly why I choose to simply not care and enjoy the movie.

Ironically, I would have prefered such titles. Mainly cause they're cheesy titles for a cheesy film. But I guess you won't take my point of view on this seriously since I'm saying it after the film's been released.

QuoteEdit: DG- Oh please, don't even start.Ã,  Putting ads in a movie and ads in the Bible are on entirely different levels. That's just sad that you have to even bring that up.

Why not? The Bible is basically a moral code. I, Robot's three laws is a moral code for robots to live by.

And a lot of people live their lives to codes set by characters in films. When you look at the bible, it's basically a collection of stories (a view offered by my grade 12 Study of Religion teacher -- a very wise woman indeed). It's the same level -- It's corperatising something that should be above that sort of thing. Putting obvious product placements in films is bringing them down to a sleazy level, just the same as putting product placements in the Bible would do the same thing.

Films should transcend such sleaze, much the same way the bible is supposed to.


Let me put it this way: Would Roman Polanski (and to a lesser degree Spielberg) do something as souless as obvious product placements in films like The Pianist or Schindler's List? (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, if there was a blatantly obvious product placement in either).

(Ironically, both films were adapted from books. :) )
#990
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Thu 29/07/2004 06:06:39
Well, while we're on the topic of product placements, why not put them in the bible:

http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/closet/silly/Product-Placement-Bible.html

Yeah, I think God's real message to all Christians was "Enjoy Coke".
#991
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Thu 29/07/2004 05:49:43
Quote from: LostTraveler on Thu 29/07/2004 05:40:58
I also agree with LGM
Lotr with pepsi would still be a great movie

You sound like the kind of guy who buys a pet zebra and names it "Spot".
#992
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Thu 29/07/2004 04:41:09
Quote from: [lgm] on Wed 28/07/2004 23:37:52
If Lord of the Rings had Gandalf drinking a Pepsi in one scene, I'd still like the movie.

With that comment alone, you've destoryed any credibility you may have had in your opinion on the film industry.
#993
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Wed 28/07/2004 21:58:57
Quote from: [lgm] on Wed 28/07/2004 15:49:24
Personally, I didn't really NOTICE the product placements... Yes, I recognized the products and such, but it never occured to me they were trying to sell it to you. Spooner likes Converse? So what? :-p

Life is so much easier when you choose not over-analyze everything.

Life is also much easier when you're either oblivious or living in denial. Coincidence?

Besides, it's hard to over-analyse when it's so blatantly done in I, Robot.
#994
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Wed 28/07/2004 13:27:27
And I drank EVIAN while I watched it.

Please, buy EVIAN!

You can call George W. Bush a pussy and they won't fire you cause they're French!
#995
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Wed 28/07/2004 13:11:31
I thought I'd put this as another post instead of an edit to my previous one:

Take the biggest movie series over the last couple of years: The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Here we have what could be described as a "period piece" so it's very hard to include product placements. You don't expect to see any vending machine for Coke in Middle-Earth. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this though.

Anyway, the films made over $300 million each in the US alone. All had a budget under $100 million. All were well made in my own opinion, but were also praised by more well-known critics. They also scored a shitload of Oscars. All three are within the IMDB's top ten too.

The consumerism (i.e. fast food tie-ins, toy sales, etc) for the film was promoted outside the realms of Middle-Earth. I prefer this type of big-budget film-making and can justify the commercial sales because it was a great film worth seeing (one that will go down in history in my opinion).

Meanwhile, I can't justify a medicore film like I, Robot or Catwoman having a budget of over $100 million. And I can't justify supporting multiplexes to show such films, especially due to the number of product placements.

And I'm fine with movies that were made in an assemby line, as long as they aren't hack jobs. Chaplin and Keaton became investments, yes, I'm fine with that. But they made quality films. I don't mind an investment that is rewarding. But I don't see Chaplin making a bloated big-budget pic like White Chicks or Keaton making an I, Robot. If they make a big budget pic, they make it with great talent. Chaplin made The Great Dictator for $2 million dollars. Probably a lot of money back then. But I'd rather see that than I. Robot.

Then again, I'm Evian... err... naive!
#996
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Wed 28/07/2004 12:50:30
I could justify it like that, but that would mean I'd be complacent about getting screwed.

Like I said, a lot of big budget movies are shitty. For every Spiderman 2 you get about 10 "Catwoman" or "White Chicks" films.

I mean, I would prefer to pay a high price to see an indie/low-budget picture because they are more creative when using limited resources.

But like I said, I'm pretty naive. (Buy EVIAN!)
#997
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Wed 28/07/2004 12:21:54
I agree with kingsized that product placement is a touchy subject.

The Mystic River example is pretty interesting. I mean, is it better to have something that's obvious like I, Robot or something that subtle (or even subliminal) as Mystic River. Some would say the Mystic River example is worse because it's sneaky.

I think I do prefer the Mystic River type though, mainly because it doesn't take the focus away from the performance. I mean, it's a little difficult for advertising to affect you in a way that you think during the movie, "My god! Poor Sean Penn! He must be so sad over his daughter's death... Hmmm, I've got the munchies for some jello pudding!" We're still focused on Penn and Eastwood's direction doesn't take focus away from that. Where as in the SWAT example or the I, Robot example the focus is clearly taken away for a quick advert.

I mean, it really ticks me off that you go to a cinema and pay somewhere between $6-$15, then sit through 20-30mins worth of ads, and then have product placement up the wazoo during the actually movie. Meanwhile, film budgets are getting bigger but most of the films produced on a big budget are shitty anyway.

I think filmmakers need to learn to be creative while using less money. Having a big budget makes things too easy. It's far creative to make something with hardly any money because you're using more thought into overcoming challenges in filmmaking.

But as kingsized also implies, it's naive to think this way.

By the way, naive spelt backwards is EVIAN! BUY EVIAN!
#998
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Wed 28/07/2004 08:47:08
GAH!!!!  >:(
#999
General Discussion / Re: I, Robot
Tue 27/07/2004 15:27:10
Maddox has an interesting point of view: http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=i_robot
#1000
General Discussion / Re: Food Update
Tue 27/07/2004 15:21:16
Err... uhhh... I... ahhh.... Horse and Hound!
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk