Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[wormraper]

lol, I love how many people will bash critics because they disagree with them but will post in Ken Brown's latest review "awesome review!" when it's something they agree with. I think some people here really don't see the PURPOSE of a critic... it's not to be right all the time, it's not to be some form of all knowledgeable god about everything film, it's to give a knowledgeable opinion on a film, blu-ray/dvd release to let the common man know what they felt on the subject. we're a HUGE anomaly in the film world. we come to forums and discus movies ad nauseum, we watch way more movies than your average movie goer ever does in both theater and home media. we have huge amounts of blind buys and are very much willing to take risks in our viewing habit. the average guy doesn't have that much time, doesn't want to come in and join a full discussion about a film. they want to come to say, this site, type in the name of a movie and get a 5 minute synopsis of the film and a star rating so they see if something they're interested in is something that's commonly "liked", or "disliked".

I certainly don't agree with every critic out there. Ken Brown is overly harsh in his reviews of popcorn movies, but I use him as a barometer because I know his likes and dislike and can grade his star ratings on a curve. It seems that some people have this abject hatred of someone getting paid or receiving studio copies to do the same thing they do in the forums all day long, critic, because they are pissed that the general public listens to them when there's a movie that they like that was dissed.

[solaris72]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Discussing films with paying members of the public is different from making your living seeing films for free and then playing a determining factor in how someones art is perceived by the public and how it performs at the box office.

Tell me, how many film critics actually make their living doing it?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by solaris72

Tell me, how many film critics actually make their living doing it?

lol, probably less than a dozen

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by solaris72

Tell me, how many film critics actually make their living doing it?

You tell me. Probably quite a few I would argue. At the very least, they are being paid and it's a job to them versus the paying audience who are forking down their cash to see a film and in some cases are far more educated than the critics themselves.

Originally Posted by octagon

In your experience, which film school is the T2 Ultimate Edition DVD most similar to?

None of them, because it's probably more informative and engaging than film school. You don't have to go to school to learn anything. That's why we have libraries.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

You tell me. Probably quite a few I would argue. At the very least, they are being paid and it's a job to them versus the paying audience who are forking down their cash to see a film and in some cases are far more educated than the critics themselves.



None of them, because it's probably more informative and engaging than film school. You don't have to go to school to learn anything. That's why we have libraries.

Why should we go to school at all then? We have libraries. 99% of all school material is in a library so why should any of us go to school. This has to be one of the more ignorant statements I have seen in a long time

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by wormraper

Why should we go to school at all then? We have libraries. 99% of all school material is in a library so why should any of us go to school. This has to be one of the more ignorant statements I have sewn in a long time

Truth hurts.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Truth hurts.

Bitter much?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Truth hurts.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

Bitter much?

Not at all. I never went to college. I never racked up student debt. I've had friends who have gone to college and are up to their eyeballs in student debt making $10/hr. I was smart, I took a short (and cheap) class to get certified in my current position and make good money with no debt. A college degree is just a piece of paper. It means little as far as your knowledge or intellect. It just means you were determined enough to obtain a piece of paper. By all means, if you have the money or get a free ride, go to college and have fun, but racking up eighty grand in debt with little guarantee of any kind of decent wage? Please.

[Kryptonic]

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Star Wars thread...

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Not at all. I never went to college. I never racked up student debt. I've had friends who have gone to college and are up to their eyeballs in student debt making $10/hr. I was smart, I took a short (and cheap) class to get certified in my current position and make good money with no debt. A college degree is just a piece of paper. It means little as far as your knowledge or intellect. It just means you were determined enough to obtain a piece of paper. By all means, if you have the money or get a free ride, go to college and have fun, but racking up eighty grand in debt with little guarantee of any kind of decent wage? Please.

Oh I so disagree..it opens so many doors that are closed or used as a minimum critera for applying for better positions.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

This is different because they're critiquing their own personal art...

No, Krypt -- directors are working in a collaborative medium and they're critiquing EVERYBODY ELSE'S art that goes in front of the lens, while conforming it to their satisfaction.

...which is a big part of the creative process and has nothing to do with someone who doesn't even pay to see your films, but passes judgement that can skew other viewers opinions.

Film criticism is opinion journalism. Opinion journalists write their opinions, and share them -- sports, politics, dance, art, films, business, etc. It is a craft. If they happen to do their job well, and influence people, don't blame the writer. That just means they had ideas people found worthy of consideration.

As for the push and pull between opinion journalists and artists...I had the great fortune to talk with Chuck Jones back in college. We were discussing a statement by Ollie Johnston - a Disney animator - that "animation was the art form of the 20th century". Jones told me a story about Robert Frost and a young man who was a big admirer of poetry. The young man was making sweeping statements, saying poetry was the greatest of all the human art forms. Frost asked the young man what he did, and the man said he was a poet. Frost responded no man has the right to call himself a poet, or even an artist. That's for others to decide. A person can only do what he does, but it is up to others to decide if that work has value, or is a work of art. It wasn't up to Johnston to say animation was the greatest art form of the 20th Century. Others would have to decide that. Film directors make movies, it is up to the audience to decide for themselves if that work has some sort of meaningful expression.

Critics do what they do, filmmakers do what they do. Filmmakers can't decide if their own work is great or important. They can't control that. They just have to put their head down and create, and the great body of humankind will determine the relative worth of their efforts. Bagging on critics is no different than bagging on your nextdoor neighbor or the postman or friends at a water cooler for expressing how they felt about a movie. No different.

Film school is a waste of time and money and you can learn practically everything you need to know before shooting a film from special features on DVD's and Blu-ray's.

Really? I've never seen a special feature on a DVD that ever adequately explained the acting process, and how directors need to understand that process for effective collaboration, or effective methods of set construction, or the best way to haul cable or lay down dolly track, or three-point lighting fundamentals, or the best lens to use on a crane when trucking from an exterior to an interior, or which color correction filters a DP should use in various lighting conditions...or how to effectively communicate with choreographers and how to break down a script for daily budgeting.

Everything you need to know? Nah -- not even scratching the surface.

[Ryan0503]

Wow this thread kinda crashed and burned.

[stvn1974]

I would hope that someone who went to film school could do better than Attack Of The Clones.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

No, Krypt -- directors are working in a collaborative medium and they're critiquing EVERYBODY ELSE'S art that goes in front of the lens, while conforming it to their satisfaction.

Untrue. A director has final say. They are directing the actors, the production design, the sound, etc. At the end of the day, the director is held accountable for the film and if a film is a single person's art, it's the director and they are using the talents of those involved with the production to create his/her art.

Film criticism is opinion journalism. Opinion journalists write their opinions, and share them -- sports, politics, dance, art, films, business, etc. It is a craft. If they happen to do their job well, and influence people, don't blame the writer. That just means they had ideas people found worthy of consideration.

As for the push and pull between opinion journalists and artists...I had the great fortune to talk with Chuck Jones back in college. We were discussing a statement by Ollie Johnston - a Disney animator - that "animation was the art form of the 20th century". Jones told me a story about Robert Frost and a young man who was a big admirer of poetry. The young man was making sweeping statements, saying poetry was the greatest of all the human art forms. Frost asked the young man what he did, and the man said he was a poet. Frost responded no man has the right to call himself a poet, or even an artist. That's for others to decide. A person can only do what he does, but it is up to others to decide if that work has value, or is a work of art. It wasn't up to Johnston to say animation was the greatest art form of the 20th Century. Others would have to decide that. Film directors make movies, it is up to the audience to decide for themselves if that work has some sort of meaningful expression.

Okay, then opinion journalism is the most useless job I can think of.

Critics do what they do, filmmakers do what they do. Filmmakers can't decide if their own work is great or important. They can't control that. They just have to put their head down and create, and the great body of humankind will determine the relative worth of their efforts. Bagging on critics is no different than bagging on your nextdoor neighbor or the postman or friends at a water cooler for expressing how they felt about a movie. No different.

The last time I checked, my next door neighbor and postman aren't being paid to write a review...

Really? I've never seen a special feature on a DVD that ever adequately explained the acting process, and how directors need to understand that process for effective collaboration, or effective methods of set construction, or the best way to haul cable or lay down dolly track, or three-point lighting fundamentals, or the best lens to use on a crane when trucking from an exterior to an interior, or which color correction filters a DP should use in various lighting conditions...or how to effectively communicate with choreographers and how to break down a script for daily budgeting.

Everything you need to know? Nah -- not even scratching the surface.

You can learn the bulk of what you need to know. Anything else, you can surely find in a handful of books about filmmaking. Stanley Kubrick didn't go to film school. Peter Jackson didn't go to film school. Christopher Nolan didn't go to film school. Tarantino didn't go to film school. I guess they did it wrong, huh?

[blonde_devil]

The audience/critics do have a voice and the right to voice thier opinion. After all, it is the movie business - if you have no one to show the film to, you are not going to make it. You don't have to listen to their opinion though and decide what movies to see and which to skip based off of that - you have your own voice. Opinions change over time and just because a movie is popular or successful doesn't mean it is good, nor does a lack of success mean it is bad. Decide for yourself. Or do like I did and quit listening to them, let the trailer and word of mouth sell you on the film.

Here is an original review for Star Wars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/s...77-review.html

Doesn't exactly give you a lot to go on and I probably wouldn't have bothered seeing it with a review like that.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

You can learn the bulk of what you need to know. Anything else, you can surely find in a handful of books about filmmaking. Stanley Kubrick didn't go to film school. Peter Jackson didn't go to film school. Christopher Nolan didn't go to film school. Tarantino didn't go to film school. I guess they did it wrong, huh?

Walt Disney and Charlie Chaplin never graduated from high school. They learned by actually making movies...not watching bonus features. Class discussion, watching movies, reading books...helpful, sure. But you learn it by doing it.

[wormraper]

This thread seems to have jumped the tracks, careened into group of school kids and then exploded while running through an orphanage

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Untrue. A director has final say. They are directing the actors, the production design, the sound, etc. At the end of the day, the director is held accountable for the film and if a film is a single person's art, it's the director and they are using the talents of those involved with the production to create his/her art.

That is not 100% true. A lot of directors are hired to just film the script as is. Unless you are a big name or also a producer, you have little say. Look at Ridley Scott - even with his name power, you still see a ton of "Director's Cuts" of his films coming out after the theatrical version is released as he still answers to the studio and has to make them happy. Someone like JJ will have lots of control over his films - Paramount pretty much gave him permission to do whatever he wanted with the Trek films - but even with Episode 7, his control will be limited if the studio doesn't like where it is going.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

The audience/critics do have a voice and the right to voice thier opinion. After all, it is the movie business - if you have no one to show the film to, you are not going to make it. You don't have to listen to their opinion though and decide what movies to see and which to skip based off of that - you have your own voice. Opinions change over time and just because a movie is popular or successful doesn't mean it is good, nor does a lack of success mean it is bad. Decide for yourself. Or do like I did and quit listening to them, let the trailer and word of mouth sell you on the film.

Here is an original review for Star Wars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/s...77-review.html

Doesn't exactly give you a lot to go on and I probably wouldn't have bothered seeing it with a review like that.

You wouldn't go see a movie called "one of the most exciting ever made"? The guy was a scientist promoting an exhibition and took exception with the plausibility of hyperspace, but otherwise makes the film sound like a rollicking good time.