The End of Great Films

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by blankall

I love New Order, but they are basically took principles of punk rock music and made them electronic. They do the equivalent of playing power cords. There's a talent to making something catchy. However, I wouldn't describe what they do as displaying musical proficiency. Anyone could play their songs after only a few months of practicing. Whereas true mastery of any musical instrument takes decades.

Yeah, I just don't really care about musical proficiency on its own; it's a means to an end. There are lots of very talented guitar players playing terrible music at jam nights in local pubs or in cover bands, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to them. And the most successful musicians I know who have made a living for 15-20 years strictly off their music aren't the most skilled musicians I know.

It's like thinking that someone who can paint the most photorealistic portrait is going to create the best art. That's never true. Being able to play an instrument well is the easy part; there are lots of good musicians. But only a few people can actually create great art, and what tools they use aren't really all that important to me.

But I guess everyone's different. Some people like Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai more than someone like Bob Dylan or Kurt Cobain. I'll never understand that, but those people exist.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, I just don't really care about musical proficiency on its own; it's a means to an end. There are lots of very talented guitar players playing terrible music at jam nights in local pubs or in cover bands, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to them. And the most successful musicians I know who have made a living for 15-20 years strictly off their music aren't the most skilled musicians I know.

It's like thinking that someone who can paint the most photorealistic portrait is going to create the best art. That's never true. Being able to play an instrument well is the easy part; there are lots of good musicians. But only a few people can actually create great art, and what tools they use aren't really all that important to me.

But I guess everyone's different. Some people like Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai more than someone like Bob Dylan or Kurt Cobain. I'll never understand that, but those people exist.

I agree somewhat. Making music that people want to listen to, speaks to people, or triggers emotions is entirely different than being proficient with an instrument. Two separate talents. The truly gifted people do have both talents. It's the reason why when someone like Prince comes along, they are truly generational.

I actually remember making a similar argument to a friend majoring in music. I made the argument that being proficient might lead you to a career as a backup muscician and it requires something else to make great art. They didn't like that argument.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

True, but they'll be drowned in crap. Like we are now.

I've used a computer creatively every day for the last 30 years dude. I know what it is. Your amp and footpedal comments are entirely beside the point. Buddy still has to operate strings attached to wood with his human body. Anything attached to that is just fluff so far as my point goes. There is nothing that happens inside the box, no matter how complicated, that is anywhere close to being that profound. The tool, the computer, has devalued that to the level of minecraft.

Man you’re bringing it into a different context than how I am taking about it. I never said watching a movie compares to live music in terms of how it feels. I’m a musician too that plays live and there’s nothing like that energy. Even human error becomes part of it. A computer can’t bend a string to an unknown place, only a known place. And I believe that’s why live music performance will never die. Filmmakers will never recieve that sort of direct response from their craft.

I was merely comparing the computer in filmmaking to the electric guitar in music as a transitionary tool. There was music before the electric guitar and when it hit, music was never the same. There was filmmaking before computer editing and then it hit, and filmmaking was never the same again. That doesn’t mean everything after it is bad. Hendrix didn’t invent the electric guitar, and he wasn’t the first to play it. But he was the first to do it like THAT. That’s why I compared Spiderverse. There was computer and hand drawn animation before it, but it was never done like THAT. I’m not comparing the actual act of playing music with doing computer animation.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, I just don't really care about musical proficiency on its own; it's a means to an end. There are lots of very talented guitar players playing terrible music at jam nights in local pubs or in cover bands, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to them. And the most successful musicians I know who have made a living for 15-20 years strictly off their music aren't the most skilled musicians I know.

It's like thinking that someone who can paint the most photorealistic portrait is going to create the best art. That's never true. Being able to play an instrument well is the easy part; there are lots of good musicians. But only a few people can actually create great art, and what tools they use aren't really all that important to me.

But I guess everyone's different. Some people like Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai more than someone like Bob Dylan or Kurt Cobain. I'll never understand that, but those people exist.

Totally agree with this.

I find that really talented musicians (in terms of technical proficiency and outright skill in their instrument of choice) along with who hold that stuff in high regard, have some of the worst taste in music possible. A lot of that stuff is incredibly boring, sacrificing imagination and heart for precision and technical achievement.

I don’t know, I just don’t find that kind of art interesting at all. It’s always funny when people use “well they aren’t even talented musicians” or “they only use power chords” or whatever. Maybe, but they’re better, more interesting artists despite that, so your priorities are dumb.

Taking it back to film, it’s like thinking Avengers or Avatar are great. They’re boring. They’re very good technical achievements and they hit all the notes a movie is “supposed” to hit, so that’s nice, but they don’t really do anything exciting when it comes to film as an art form. There are rare talents that combine both, but it’s rare. Robert Eggers is probably one of the best examples. The technical proficiency and detail of his films is on a level people probably don’t even come close to realizing, but he’s using that to do something we don’t really see anymore and doing something exciting from an art perspective. Lighthouse is probably his best achievement in terms of that balance, but you could argue that both Northman and the Witch are pretty boring because he can also get too caught up in technical achievements.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Totally agree with this.

I find that really talented musicians (in terms of technical proficiency and outright skill in their instrument of choice) along with who hold that stuff in high regard, have some of the worst taste in music possible. A lot of that stuff is incredibly boring, sacrificing imagination and heart for precision and technical achievement.

I don’t know, I just don’t find that kind of art interesting at all. It’s always funny when people use “well they aren’t even talented musicians” or “they only use power chords” or whatever. Maybe, but they’re better, more interesting artists despite that, so your priorities are dumb.

Taking it back to film, it’s like thinking Avengers or Avatar are great. They’re boring. They’re very good technical achievements and they hit all the notes a movie is “supposed” to hit, so that’s nice, but they don’t really do anything exciting when it comes to film as an art form. There are rare talents that combine both, but it’s rare. Robert Eggers is probably one of the best examples. The technical proficiency and detail of his films is on a level people probably don’t even come close to realizing, but he’s using that to do something we don’t really see anymore and doing something exciting from an art perspective. Lighthouse is probably his best achievement in terms of that balance, but you could argue that both Northman and the Witch are pretty boring because he can also get too caught up in technical achievements.

A better comparison in filmmaking would be comparing high end musicians to classically trained actors or directors who are extremely technically proficient. Sometimes, however, actors with no training just have it.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by blankall

I agree somewhat. Making music that people want to listen to, speaks to people, or triggers emotions is entirely different than being proficient with an instrument. Two separate talents. The truly gifted people do have both talents. It's the reason why when someone like Prince comes along, they are truly generational.

I actually remember making a similar argument to a friend majoring in music. I made the argument that being proficient might lead you to a career as a backup muscician and it requires something else to make great art. They didn't like that argument.

Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with appreciating musical talent on its own. Personally I can't really get into that with more modern music, but hearing a talented piano player playing classical music or talented jazz musicians is amazing. I just take issue with the idea that using electronic instruments is somehow cheating or lesser than the acoustic equivalent. It's still a person making all the decisions and crafting the music.

To use Prince as an example, is Purple Rain less of an artistic triumph because the drumming is almost entirely sequenced rather than played live? Or does his use of Oberheim synths all over it lessen the quality because he didn't learn to play horns/strings on his own or hire an orchestra? Not at all. He wanted a sound, and he was able to achieve it with a synthesizer.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Coach

Man you’re bringing it into a different context than how I am taking about it. I never said watching a movie compares to live music in terms of how it feels.

I didn't talk about comparing them about the feels. I'm talking about equating creative output dependent on the box, a box I use in that way all the time, to actual human art. And how it has devalued the product it produces to the point that it isn't even interesting anymore.

I was merely comparing the computer in filmmaking to the electric guitar in music as a transitionary tool. There was music before the electric guitar and when it hit, music was never the same. There was filmmaking before computer editing and then it hit, and filmmaking was never the same again. That doesn’t mean everything after it is bad. Hendrix didn’t invent the electric guitar, and he wasn’t the first to play it. But he was the first to do it like THAT. That’s why I compared Spiderverse. There was computer and hand drawn animation before it, but it was never done like THAT. I’m not comparing the actual act of playing music with doing computer animation.

Again, you're arguing that somehow the merit of using the box to make Spiderverse is somehow in the same universe of merit as Hendrix doing that with strings, wood, and his body. Does not compute.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Jordan Peele is a good director???

His movies suck but to be fair I only saw Get Out and Us, maybe Nope was a great film that I missed.

As for the original post I think this has to do with a lot of nostalgia, I am not a movie nerd (so if offensive if there is a more PC term I will switch to it) but I have been watching a lot of older, highly regarded movies and they aren't nearly as great as people claim.

lol

[Coach]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with appreciating musical talent on its own. Personally I can't really get into that with more modern music, but hearing a talented piano player playing classical music or talented jazz musicians is amazing. I just take issue with the idea that using electronic instruments is somehow cheating or lesser than the acoustic equivalent. It's still a person making all the decisions and crafting the music.

To use Prince as an example, is Purple Rain less of an artistic triumph because the drumming is almost entirely sequenced rather than played live? Or does his use of Oberheim synths all over it lessen the quality because he didn't learn to play horns/strings on his own or hire an orchestra? Not at all. He wanted a sound, and he was able to achieve it with a synthesizer.

Honestly, I would say yes. Personally I find Prince's music firmly rooted in his time because of his use of the synth on the drums. It will never not sound like 80's music. If it was live instruments it would sound better and be more timeless IMO, but that's just me. Never been a big Prince fan.

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Again, you're arguing that somehow the merit of using the box to make Spiderverse is somehow in the same universe of merit as Hendrix doing that with strings, wood, and his body. Does not compute.

You know that people have to use their hands and brain to use a computer right? What's the different between something made of strings and wood to something made of metal and wires? It's just an object. Just because someone's holding a guitar doesn't automatically make the sound they make better than someone with a computer.

[Traditional_Ale]

Also, anyone in this thread who actually thinks any musician ever sacrificed "heart" for "technical proficiency" is completely insane. The only people who say this are failed musicians, or really insecure amazing ones.

[Coach]

nm

[Jiri Hrdina]

I hadn't been to a movie theatre since pre COVID. I'm someone that when I was younger would see 1-2 movies every week. But just got out of the habit.
I was traveling through Montana though last week, without much to do in the evenings, so I went and saw Oppenheimer and Spiderverse. They renewed my love for seeing films in the theatre.
Both are fantastic but Spiderverse I felt was remarkable. Visually and from a story telling POV.
I think I'll start going back to the theatre more now.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Coach

You know that people have to use their hands and brain to use a computer right?

They most certainly do not.

What's the different between something made of strings and wood to something made of metal and wires?

It works when there is no electricity, like it has for thousands of years.

Look, man, its becoming obvious you want to be recognized as a creative. Fair enough, me too. So, if I take away your computer, what do you got?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Also, anyone in this thread who actually thinks any musician ever sacrificed "heart" for "technical proficiency" is completely insane. The only people who say this are failed musicians, or really insecure amazing ones.

I think the point is that you don't necessarily need technical proficiency to be considered a great artist.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

They most certainly do not.



It works when there is no electricity, like it has for thousands of years.

Look, man, its becoming obvious you want to be recognized as a creative. Fair enough, me too. So, if I take away your computer, what do you got?

Guitar, bass, drums, microphones, paint supplies, paper, cameras, construction tools....

How do you record anything without plugging anything in? Wind up machines?

[TheIronMaiden]

I think you can use CGI from the heart and soul to sell a story and make fine art. But I also think that movie studios have not been doing that as well as they could.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Coach

Guitar, bass, drums, microphones, paint supplies, paper, cameras, construction tools....

Sweet ass.

EDIT: I went the no electricity route, but I'm backtracking on it. Come the zombie apocalypse we'd still have enough solar and battery to go for a bit.

DOUBLE EDIT: Fwiw, argument aside, I personally do find when people do stuff with your list its way more interesting than any movie, anyway. People vote with their money, and I usually spend my money on seeing weird stuff as it is. But that is just me.

[FlamesAddiction]

There are a lot of great films being made these days, but also a lot of crap that you have to navigate through to find the gems. A lot of the crap also gets marketed and pushed so hard as if to convince the audience that they are watching something great. It's the same thing in the music industry.

Production companies have become proficient in gaslighting audiences into thinking that if something is popular, it must be good, and if you don't like it, you just have no taste. The films or musicians become popular before they even see an audience in many cases. They have formulas that work and don't want to stray from them often.

[Coach]

nvm

[peter12]

I loved Barbie.