- Time
- Post link
You are the one who claims to have worked in the industry
I don’t claim to work in the industry. I work in advertising, not film. I was very clear that I work in a different industry, and therefore do not profess to know better than JJ, Kasdan, et al. In fact, that was my whole point.
Your whole point is “can’t make it yourself then don’t complain”. That posture would basically overrule a whole universe of professional art critics, and average people who have and can build an opinion based on justifications.
I don’t know how you personally feel with your studies, but what you propose is just as if no one could give his thought on a building without being an architect.
Everybody is entitled to an opinion. I just don’t believe that anybody here is HONESTLY of the opinion that the prequels are good movies. Even if you feel it’s possible to argue that they are superior in terms of originality and structure etc, they fail in the most basic ways like being an enjoyable way to spend two hours. I think arguing the case for the prequels on a TFA review thread is just argumentative posturing, using knowledge to assert a differing opinion for the sake of it. That’s not discussion, that’s antagonising and being contrary.
Check the lenght and complexity of the posts to see if it’s discussion with fundaments or just antagonising
And to use your building/architect analogy, of course, people can look at a building and say ‘I don’t like it, it’s ugly’ or whatever, but they probably shouldn’t start giving advice on how to structurally improve it. I’m also pretty sure that if they had a go at designing and erecting that building themselves, it would fall down - because actually making a building is different to reading a book about it.
I’m afraid you’d be surprised to know that the vast majority of western architects did not, do not, and will not build their designs themselves. That’s the whole point of designing; that the project exists in a completely etheral, non detailed plane while the actual building is charged with details. The design is always an intention, an idea or who something should be. Not the thing itself. And designs are always criticized.
Exactly like what a plot is. A plot is the basic premise of a movie. It doesn’t matter if Jakku is not Tattooine, because the plot is the first, most obvious structure of the film.
In a general level, there’s the protagoist feeling uncomfortable about living in the fringe of the galaxy.
In a more detailed level, there’s the protagonist living in a desert planet in the fringe of the galaxy.
Just for the sake of curiosity, do you deem more important to know the difference between the technical capabilities of two camera-objectives than to know what do you intend to do with the camera? The former requires a certain training in optics and perspective, the latter is widely opinable even if you never handled a camera. Because it only needs some attention and a rational mind. That’s why everyone can criticize but a few can perform.
Knowledge builds itself concentrically from what’s general to what’s particular. Among other things, two movies can have the same plot and different details. Because when your mind processes stuff and makes a classification, details are the first things it discards.
Show off 😉
See above. It’s just an answer to your strange elliptical requirement of having studies to speak about the most popular example of pop-corn cinema.
But really man, everyone is entitled to its own opinion, the point is that everyone can and should give his own view in a forum. Get off the pony.
Cool. Point taken. My opinion is that people on this board who claim to prefer the prequels over TFA are either nuts or lying. Maybe both.
Well, I just popped on here for my nightly internet LOLZ and looks like I got them.
I’m off to read my ‘Art of The Force Awakens’ book because I like seeing the love and thought that went into the movie to make it feel like Star Wars.
Bye.
Bye!
