Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Well that's good to hear then. Although in the case of The Man Who Fell To Earth, I got the impression that even really artsy-film fans probably wouldn't have liked it either. Even for what it was trying to be, it didn't seem very well done. 


Zardoz can never be topped!  http://craptastictv.com/wp-content/uploads/zardoz.jpg

Walter Bright:
> Zardoz can never be topped!  http://craptastictv.com/wp-content/uploads/zardoz.jpg

I think Sean Connery is having nightmares still about that carnivalesque look :-)

Bye,
bearophile

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i5p72r$2r7a$2@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Well that's good to hear then. Although in the case of The Man Who Fell To Earth, I got the impression that even really artsy-film fans probably wouldn't have liked it either. Even for what it was trying to be, it didn't seem very well done.
>
>
> Zardoz can never be topped! http://craptastictv.com/wp-content/uploads/zardoz.jpg

Ha! That's hilarious! Disturbing...But hilarious :)

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are central themes in the movie.

But if I showed you 15 minutes of me driving around on the freeway, you'd think I was torturing you.

It's like that unauthenticated Pollock painting. If it is authenticated, it's a masterpiece. If not, it's just paint dribbled on canvas. The painting is the same in either case.

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i5pa6s$316c$1@digitalmars.com...
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are central themes in the movie.
>
> But if I showed you 15 minutes of me driving around on the freeway, you'd think I was torturing you.
>
> It's like that unauthenticated Pollock painting. If it is authenticated, it's a masterpiece. If not, it's just paint dribbled on canvas. The painting is the same in either case.

Context does change things - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for questionable reasons.

Someone recently brought up the book Atlanta Nights ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights ). If I had come across that in a library a week ago, I likely would have thought "What a horrid book! Terrible waste of paper." But now that I know the story behind it (it was *deliberately* bad), I find it hilarious.

Another example: Back when the "Jerry Maguire" movie came out sometime in the 90's, one song on its soundtrack started getting played everywhere: "I would walk 10,000 miles" or something like that. I *hated* that song. So irritating. A few years later I found out that song was originally released in the 80's (not the 90's), made it big in Europe, but got ignored in the US until Jerry Maguire popularized it. But see, I'm a huge 80's nut. I swear, the very next time I heard the song, it didn't bother me anymore, and I actually started to like it. All that even though I knew perfectly well it was the exact same song I had hated and that the *only* thing that had changed was my knowledge of what decade it was made.

It *is* an incredibly stupid phenomenon, no doubt. But it is a normal human thing, for better or worse.

On 9/2/10 17:03 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
>> crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and
>> meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which
>> are central themes in the movie.
>
> This sounds more like an after the fact rationalization!

That's the thing with art - a relational value.

Andrei

On 9/2/10 17:58 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
>> crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and
>> meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which
>> are central themes in the movie.
>
> But if I showed you 15 minutes of me driving around on the freeway,
> you'd think I was torturing you.

Well yah but that's because it'd be /you/. :o)

> It's like that unauthenticated Pollock painting. If it is authenticated,
> it's a masterpiece. If not, it's just paint dribbled on canvas. The
> painting is the same in either case.

Not at all. The comparison doesn't make sense. I and others I discussed it with found the scene was very powerful, and when I first watched the movie I had no opinion about the director etc. That you didn't find anything in it doesn't automatically make it crappy.


Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> That you didn't find anything in it doesn't automatically make it crappy.

Yes it does!

On 9/2/10 21:01 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> That you didn't find anything in it doesn't automatically make it crappy.
>
> Yes it does!

Hmmmm, that's a good argument. I thought of it for a while and I agree with you.

Andrei

Hello Nick,

> "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> news:i5pa6s$316c$1@digitalmars.com...
> 
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> 
>>> The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
>>> crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and
>>> meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of
>>> which are central themes in the movie.
>>> 
>> But if I showed you 15 minutes of me driving around on the freeway,
>> you'd think I was torturing you.
>> 
>> It's like that unauthenticated Pollock painting. If it is
>> authenticated, it's a masterpiece. If not, it's just paint dribbled
>> on canvas. The painting is the same in either case.
>> 
> Context does change things - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for
> questionable reasons.
> 
> Someone recently brought up the book Atlanta Nights (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights ). If I had come across
> that in a library a week ago, I likely would have thought "What a
> horrid book! Terrible waste of paper." But now that I know the story
> behind it (it was *deliberately* bad), I find it hilarious.
> 
> Another example: Back when the "Jerry Maguire" movie came out sometime
> in the 90's, one song on its soundtrack started getting played
> everywhere: "I would walk 10,000 miles" or something like that. I
> *hated* that song. So irritating. A few years later I found out that
> song was originally released in the 80's (not the 90's), made it big
> in Europe, but got ignored in the US until Jerry Maguire popularized
> it. But see, I'm a huge 80's nut. I swear, the very next time I heard
> the song, it didn't bother me anymore, and I actually started to like
> it. All that even though I knew perfectly well it was the exact same
> song I had hated and that the *only* thing that had changed was my
> knowledge of what decade it was made.
> 
> It *is* an incredibly stupid phenomenon, no doubt. But it is a normal
> human thing, for better or worse.
> 

Venison makes really bad beef. And as long as you expect it to tates like beef it will taste bad. Same goes for most anything, if you think it's something it's not, you'll think it's a bad example of what it's not.


-- 
... <IXOYE><