briand@tekig1.UUCP (06/15/84)
{}
I wish to reinforce several valid gripes that have appeared recently.
Discussion of Star Trek MCMCXIII and Indiana Jones #13 should ALL be moved to:
net.movies.hollywood.juvenile.tripe
Once established, net.movies.sw could be migrated into it. It would also be
able to cover all future Spielberg/Lucas releases, as well as Steven King
"literature." Should they ever do Harold Robbins potboilers, this would be the
perfect "forum." Also, "Friday the 13th" and its ilk. In other words, I pro-
pose nothing less than a permanent solution to this problem, since a permanent
solution to the source of the problem is considered socially unacceptable in
western society.
This would allow a forum for the terminally infantile to jibber at will,
leaving the rest of us to discuss films aimed at an audience with an IQ higher
than an ET doll in heat.
If there are any left, what with boxoffice pressure of the above groups.
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.russell@ihuxu.UUCP (Larry Russell) (06/18/84)
[]
Brian Diehm writes:
Discussion of Star Trek MCMCXIII and Indian Jones #13 should
all be moved to:
net.movies.hollywood.juvenile.tripe
Mr. Diehm seems to forget that the "populist" cinema sold to the
"infantile" masses pays the bills so that pseudo-intellectuals like
himself can see the boring, incomprehensible hogwash produced only
to satisfy the egos of directors who fashion themselves as "artists."
You want art, read a book; they don't cost $20M to produce.
Seriously, though, I get a little tired of skipping through endless
articles on "Wizard of Oz" trivia (as well as endless STIII trivia),
so why don't we have:
net.movies.trivia,
net.movies.classic, and
net.movies.current,
instead of one category?
--
Larry Russell
AT&T-Bell Laboratories
Naperville, IL
ihnp4!ihuxurlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/18/84)
> I wish to reinforce several valid gripes that have appeared recently. > Discussion of StarTrek MCMCXIII and Indiana Jones #13 should ALL be moved to: > net.movies.hollywood.juvenile.tripe > Once established, net.movies.sw could be migrated into it. It would also be > able to cover all future Spielberg/Lucas releases, as well as Steven King > "literature." Should they ever do Harold Robbins potboilers,this would be the > perfect "forum." Also, "Friday the 13th" and its ilk. In other words, I pro- > pose nothing less than a permanent solution to this problem, since a permanent > solution to the source of the problem is considered socially unacceptable in > western society. > This would allow a forum for the terminally infantile to jibber at will, > leaving the rest of us to discuss films aimed at an audience with an IQ > higher than an ET doll in heat. If there are any left, what with boxoffice > pressure of the above groups. > > Brian Diehm > Tektronix, Inc. An equally viable solution would be to create "net.movies.snobs", the first article of which would contain a list of topics that Mr. Diehm (in his recurring role as the Almighty) finds appropriate for discussion amongst truly dignified intellects (and, of course, those that were inappropriate as well). People who can't tolerate other people's tastes should probably have their own newsgroup. Why not net.movies.diehm?? I hope that no one takes his fascistic elitist proposal seriously, and that we can continue to discuss ALL movies in net.movies! [I'll bet you thought I would draw an analogy to net.music.classical, didn't you? ...] -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
dwhitney@uok.UUCP (06/19/84)
#R:tekig1:-168300:uok:5100023:000:205 uok!dwhitney Jun 19 15:51:00 1984 It is refreshing to know that there are people out there who are aware of the IQ of ET dolls in heat, something I'm sure only a select few are privvy to. ~ :-) David Whitney !ctvax!uokvax!uok!dwhitney
dwhitney@uok.UUCP (06/20/84)
#R:tekig1:-168300:uok:5100024:000:629 uok!dwhitney Jun 20 11:15:00 1984 AMEN!!! What Rich Rosen said in Response 3, only times ten.. Undoubtedly, Mr. Diehm would like to see nothing more than a net.snobs and net.movies.diehm, and then, only if they included literature on pretentious Hollywood products as "My Dinner with Andre." Of course, there are those who enjoy the kind of movie that in a subtle way tries to tell us all how we are living our lives wrong, and how Hollywod (in its infinite wisdom) thinks we should live them. Here's to the discussion of ALL movies in net.movies, not just restricted to the "Yentl" and related snob-class films..... David Whitney !ctvax!uokvax!uok!dwhitney
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (06/20/84)
(oo)
How about net.movies.critically.acclaimed.yawners?
My candidate for worst critically acclaimed movie of 1983-84:
"My Dinner With Andre"
For those who didn't see it, this film was the ego trip of some funny-
looking guy with big lips (who also played the principal supporting
character). It consisted entirely of a long conversation between
Andre and biglips about Andre's experiences with some Polish hippies.
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fishrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/26/84)
> AMEN!! What Rich Rosen said in Response 3, only times ten. Undoubtedly, Mr. > Diehm would like to see nothing more than a net.snobs and net.movies.diehm, > and then, only if they included literature on pretentious Hollywood products > as "My Dinner with Andre." Of course, there are those who enjoy the kind > of movie that in a subtle way tries to tell us all how we are living our > lives wrong, and how Hollywod (in its infinite wisdom) thinks we should live > them. Here's to the discussion of ALL movies in net.movies, not just > restricted to the "Yentl" and related snob-class films..... > David Whitney > !ctvax!uokvax!uok!dwhitney Before I get lumped in with every group that each individual person on this net despises ("those snobs", "those drivel-lovers", "those teenage hooligans", etc.), I think you've missed the point. Mr. Diehm has a right to like whatever movies he chooses, and so does everyone else. And everyone (including Mr. Diehm) has the right to make comments on movies he/she likes... OR DOESN'T LIKE! The point being: the idea of a separate newsgroup for "serious" movies is preposterous and silly. But there's nothing wrong with discussing such movies in this forum, even though most of the movies discussed here do seem to be of the type that mass marketing was made for. If Mr. Diehm can't make direct insightful comments about either movies he likes or movies he hates in a newsgroup he shares with others, that's his problem. But if all Mr. Whitney has to say is that the movies that Mr. Diehm likes are pretentious or somehow demagogical (?) solely for the purpose of insulting Mr. Diehm, then those comments are as inappropriate as Diehm's request for "his own" newsgroup. (Yentl is a *snob-class* film???????? I hesitate to guess what you might think of a movie like Stardust Memories...) Frankly, I have to wonder why people make comments like Mr. Whitney has regarding "serious" movies. Why is a movie like My Dinner with Andre (which does drag but gets better if you're willing to sit through it---most Americans aren't; they want it laid out for them at the beginning like a Clint Eastwood movie) berated as being "pretentious" and "shoving ways to live down your throat" (they just seem insightful to me), while marketing ploys like "E.T. Jones and the Return of the Gremlins", which are designed solely to make you buy fuzzy things, are not shoving things down your throat. Which brings me to another point. I did like E.T. (horrors!), but not Jones or Jedi (not THAT much) or Gremlins. My gripe speaks directly at Gremlins. Can't these so-called Hollywood whiz kids come up with an original idea of their own??????? Spielberg's original ideas over the past years have included adventure film rehash, a "tribute" to a TV series, and (finally) a movie that lifts (grabs!) elements from the Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, the Trouble with Tribbles, etc. (If I hear once more that Spielberg wasn't responsible for Gremlins, I'll shoot someone; he was directly involved in the movie---take a look at the credits) Craftmanship is one thing, and the Lucasberg people surely have it and use it VERY VERY well. But after early successes, we haven't seen much in the way of originality. (This sort of reminds me of a "discussion" I had with someone else on a topic related to this---the music of John Williams. Williams is undoubtedly a great craftsman, but apparently in the '80s we simply now have a lower standard of originality. What a shame...) -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!
dwhitney@uok.UUCP (06/29/84)
#R:tekig1:-168300:uok:5100030:000:1917 uok!dwhitney Jun 28 21:06:00 1984 The reason I (being Mr. Whitney) make comments berating certain films as "snob-class" and "pretentious" is merely because that is exactly what they are. Average folks who work eight hours a day want to go to the movies to escape from reality, not have Hollywood's version of it crammed down their throats; hence, the success of escapist films such as Indiana Jones, Star Trek, E.T., you name it. The Academy Awards always go out to those films with deep social relevance, and they try to hide those which are geared strictly for entertainment. It has almost come to the point that if it makes money, it must be purely commerical "fuzzy-thing-sellers", and that it cannot be truly good filmmaking. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like E.T. (too silly), Jedi (too dern flag-waving and 4th of July). But there is a distinct difference of market appeal in films for those seeking to escape society's dilemmas, or those looking for pretension. No one in my family, that I know of (and we are a rather large group, all totalled) saw Terms of Endearment, Cross Creek, or any other films which were so widely acclaimed by the critics and the Academy. (the black-tie folks who hand out the little gold statues) Being average people, we enjoy simple comedies as Airplane, Cannonball, 9 to 5, and the like, because they serve a very simple purpose: they entertain. When movies start to preach social issues, or if a society becomes so simple-minded that a two-hour flick can change entire society's views on some big subject, then that is when movies get out of hand and their focus of purpose entirely lost. If being one who enjoys escapist, non-preachy films makes me a puerile, mindless juvenile, then color me guilty. I have no need for Hollywoods browbeating, liberal-preaching, and self-gratifying lectures disguised as art and distributed to movie theaters with slick posters Here's to entertainment. David Whitney
citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Citrin) (07/03/84)
David Whitney seems to think that entertaining movies, which the average American working stiff (presumably including him) must be mindless escapism. I just can't understand this inverse snobbery. (That's what it is.) I think that he does an injustice to many (I hesitate to say most) moviegoers. Filmmakers (including those in Hollywood) are fully capable of producing entertaining films of substance, and they don't have to resort to cute aliens and laboratory special effects. I consider all of my favorite films to be both entertaining and with intellectual content, otherwise I wouldn't have enjoyed them. As examples I give "The Stunt Man," "M*A*S*H," "Local Hero," and "The Third Man." So before you proclaim the virtues of mindless escapism, consider some alternatives. Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin)
upstill@ucbvax.UUCP (Steve Upstill) (07/03/84)
Let's see now. 9 to 5 is simple, messageless entertainment, but Terms of Endearment is liberal, preachy, blah blah blah pretension? I'd say Whitney is deeply confused. Just goes to show, if you don't use it, you lose it. I'm talking gray matter here.
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (07/07/84)
In article <5100030@uok.UUCP> dwhitney@uok.UUCP writes: >... Academy. (the black-tie folks who hand out the little gold statues) > >Here's to entertainment. >David Whitney The people who decide on the Academy Awards are not some ubiquitous group of "black-tie folks." They are the film-makers. They are the actors, directors, etc. They all vote for the nominees, and then the members of each sub-group vote for the winners (i.e. directors vote for best director, actors and actresses vote for best actor and actress, etc.) The Academy Awards are not handed out to tell you or anyone else what you should or should not watch. It is the members of a set of professions deciding who among them did the best job at what they all do. Most professions do this: in CS we have things like the Turing Award; it is not given out to the guy who wrote the most "popular" program, it is given out to the best computer scientist (in some sense). -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar