Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Waking Life: Utter Crap or Genius? (NDL vs Sloth)

  1. #1
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    2,704

    Waking Life: Utter Crap or Genius? (NDL vs Sloth)

    Quote Originally Posted by Faust View Post
    Beyond the Black Rainbow - Slow, retro-futuristic psychedelic horror. Great for the 'genre' if it is one. It's not amazing, but seems lesser-known. The sets and ambiance are great.
    So true! Overall it's kinda boring and dumb, but the sets are EPIC!!! I adore the look of that film, the PD and DP knocked it out.

    Also, I recommend Waking Life to every INTP ever.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Tetris Champion notdavidlynch's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    LA County
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
    Also, I recommend Waking Life to every idiot ever.
    FYP.

  3. #3
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    2,704
    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    FYP.
    Elaborate.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Tetris Champion notdavidlynch's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    LA County
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
    Elaborate.
    It's an ugly, dumb and overrated movie. If I explain why I'll offend 80% of the people here and it's really not worth getting into.

  5. #5
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    2,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Slab_Bulkhead View Post
    I am already shocked and appalled.

    I'm a monster myself, given my occasional use of handicapped stalls, but not liking Waking Life is not pardonable under any moral system I know of. Jesus, Moses, Muhammed, Buddha, Vishnu and Hitchens all hate you.
    Agreed.

  6. #6
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    2,704
    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    it's really not worth getting into.
    Oh I think it might be.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Tetris Champion notdavidlynch's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    LA County
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
    Oh I think it might be.
    I'll keep it brief.

    It sucks as visual "art" - There's nothing imaginative, creative, expressive or new about the use of digital rotoscoping. Some say that the visual style matches the transient and can't-be-sure-of-anything style of dreams, but my dreams certainly don't look like that, they don't feel like that, and I would never associate the two. Doing so would be an insult to the visual style of my dreams. Worse, the visuals make me nauseous. Worse still, I understand the process of rotoscoping, as I've done it myself, and I see it for what it is: a bunch of underpaid, young workers fighting off the urge to kill themselves as they knit together this patchwork, cum-soaked blanket to cover what was almost certainly low quality digital video. Most importantly though, the visual style is just ugly.

    It sucks as "philosophy" - As bad as I feel saying this, not all of the ideas presented in the movie are half-baked. There's some genuine stuff in there. Unfortunately, it's presented as a sequence of excerpts, or very brief, butchering summaries. They're presented without most of the context - the history of ideas leading up to them, the specific problems that thinkers were hoping to address, the argumentation, the counter-argumentation and the depth. Basically, philosophical ideas presented sans most of the actual philosophy. And why? Why these dialogues/monologues? Why in this order? What is the point? Worse, why would anyone care to listen if they already knew something about the ideas, or at least knew where they could read about them? If you're exposed to the ideas already it's just not interesting/doesn't carry the same impact/doesn’t bring food for thought. And, if knowledge of things in the world around you can spoil a movie, then how could it be presenting anything new/unique/interesting? Does it have it's own ideas?

    It sucks as "film" - Look, it's obvious that someone can do just about whatever they want, record it, and call it a film, perhaps even call it avant garde because it doesn't adhere to established traditions and practices and tries to break new ground. It's also obvious that Waking Life doesn't adhere to these traditions and practices. There's like, next to zero actual story, characters, character development, etc. The rotoscoping literally covers up for the art of quality shooting/cinematography. The ways in which shot selection and pacing interplay with the characters and the progression of the story.. That's absent, obscured, or simply not well done. There's just nothing here that makes it a good movie, which would be forgivable if there was something good in it's place but, with my first two points in mind, that's just not the case.

    It's cheap. It's lazy. It's boring. It's nauseating. It doesn't have it's own ideas, or at least can't express them without a motley crew of proxies there to discuss ideas that may or may not actually be related to something Linklater wants to say. I doubt he knows. If he did, he should've made a better movie, or found a more appropriate medium for expression.

    And don't give me the David Lynch, it's-not-bad-it's-just-surrealist-dream-logic bullshit. There's good surrealism and there's b-b-b-b-bad surrealism. There are dreams that are interesting and express some kind of potential, and there are dreams that are boring, repetitive and/or just stupid. There are good films that present big thinkers giving impromptu summaries that don’t do justice to the complexity of their thought (they tend to stick in the realm of “documentary”), and there are bad ones that do the same (like this one).

  8. #8
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    2,704
    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    And don't give me the David Lynch, it's-not-bad-it's-just-surrealist-dream-logic bullshit.
    Don't tell me what to do. I just got my Master's from David Lynch's alma mater where it's drilled into us to fiercely question anyone's opinions about a film. I'll critique a film any way I god damn well please. I've been through too much for the film industry to let some random kid on the internet using flowery film terms who waves a flag around in the air *maybe I'm David Lynch* *maybe I'm not* to intimidate me out of speaking my mind about something I care about.

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    It sucks as visual "art" - There's nothing imaginative, creative, expressive or new about the use of digital rotoscoping. Some say that the visual style matches the transient and can't-be-sure-of-anything style of dreams, but my dreams certainly don't look like that, they don't feel like that, and I would never associate the two. Doing so would be an insult to the visual style of my dreams. Worse, the visuals make me nauseous. Worse still, I understand the process of rotoscoping, as I've done it myself, and I see it for what it is: a bunch of underpaid, young workers fighting off the urge to kill themselves as they knit together this patchwork, cum-soaked blanket to cover what was almost certainly low quality digital video. Most importantly though, the visual style is just ugly.
    Sounds like you'd hate Picasso and Van Gough too because they didn't create a visual art that anyone's seen in real life either. You said later in your post there's a difference between good surrealism and bad surrealism, you're going to have to be more specific than using the "I don't like it because I know how it's done" and the "I just feel nauseated" argument. There's a lot of films where I know exactly how they achieve certain effects, and yes I can never view them the way a layman would but that doesn't deter from the fact that to someone not experienced in creating that art can be swept away by the effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    It sucks as "philosophy" - As bad as I feel saying this, not all of the ideas presented in the movie are half-baked. There's some genuine stuff in there. Unfortunately, it's presented as a sequence of excerpts, or very brief, butchering summaries. They're presented without most of the context - the history of ideas leading up to them, the specific problems that thinkers were hoping to address, the argumentation, the counter-argumentation and the depth. Basically, philosophical ideas presented sans most of the actual philosophy. And why? Why these dialogues/monologues? Why in this order? What is the point? Worse, why would anyone care to listen if they already knew something about the ideas, or at least knew where they could read about them? If you're exposed to the ideas already it's just not interesting/doesn't carry the same impact/doesn’t bring food for thought. And, if knowledge of things in the world around you can spoil a movie, then how could it be presenting anything new/unique/interesting? Does it have it's own ideas?
    There's a whole lot of "ifs" in this paragraph. One thing I love about this film is that it's an avenue for people to be exposed to these philosophies *that haven't been before*, you note "why not read about it" well probably because film and books are in many ways fundamentally different mediums that invoke very different inner experiences. Not everyone on the planet knows every nuance of philosophy, but most are interested to one degree or another and this film is a way to reach people that normally don't think to read about philosophy but are open to watching films. It could indeed inspire those same people to later on pick up a book and read about it when they might not have otherwise. At the very least it's an important film, regardless of the arguable precision of its execution.

    Edit: Added a little more to this paragraph.

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    It sucks as "film" - Look, it's obvious that someone can do just about whatever they want, record it, and call it a film, perhaps even call it avant garde because it doesn't adhere to established traditions and practices and tries to break new ground. It's also obvious that Waking Life doesn't adhere to these traditions and practices. There's like, next to zero actual story, characters, character development, etc. The rotoscoping literally covers up for the art of quality shooting/cinematography. The ways in which shot selection and pacing interplay with the characters and the progression of the story.. That's absent, obscured, or simply not well done. There's just nothing here that makes it a good movie, which would be forgivable if there was something good in it's place but, with my first two points in mind, that's just not the case.
    Linklater is known for pushing cinematic boundaries, and I respect anyone that's willing to take the risks that he has. It was a *low budget film* sorry not everyone can afford to pay top dollar to re-invent a new computer animation program for every project they do. Filmmaking is all about being resourceful and practical, while not compromising your overall vision. I will call this film avant-garde, and to me you've failed to make a solid argument as to why that's a bad thing in this case. It's not a traditional narrative... your point? Dreams themselves are not traditional narratives, and they themselves are often illogical and hard to decipher. There's also often a lot of misinformation in dreams, and characters and *shots* don't always seem to make immediate sense. His style in this film is an attempt to reflect that.

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    It's cheap. It's lazy. It's boring. It's nauseating. It doesn't have it's own ideas, or at least can't express them without a motley crew of proxies there to discuss ideas that may or may not actually be related to something Linklater wants to say. I doubt he knows. If he did, he should've made a better movie, or found a more appropriate medium for expression.
    Doesn't have its own ideas? What other film could this possibly remind you of that it doesn't seem original? This reads as very opinion based without solid arguments to back these up, it's like reading "I prefer the color red over the color blue, because red is prettier to me." It's your right to feel that way, and after all we're talking about art. I personally still think the film has a lot to offer, and is trail blazing.

    Shit I mean we could say Laurence of Arabia is a shit film because the camera technology wasn't invented yet that could accurately express its true intentions. Ground breaking ideas have to start somewhere. If nothing else, this film will influence future filmmakers that will refine the sloppiness you keep alluding to and lead to some really incredible work later on. That alone is worth giving this film respect.
    Last edited by Sloth; 09-22-2014 at 06:43 AM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Tetris Champion notdavidlynch's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    LA County
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
    Don't tell me what to do. I just got my Master's from David Lynch's alma mater where it's drilled into us to fiercely question anyone's opinions about a film. I'll critique a film any way I god damn well please. I've been through too much for the film industry to let some random kid on the internet using flowery film terms who waves a flag around in the air *maybe I'm David Lynch* *maybe I'm not* to intimidate me out of speaking my mind about something I care about.
    If you're going to bring this up to try and back up your opinions, then I may as well ridicule you for doing so. I have two friends who both graduated from AFI (directing) and they both fiercely question the quality of the education, the quality of the student body, and their decisions to attend. And the waving a “flag” around? I don’t know what you mean there. I’m not going to be intimidated from criticizing you for being slow if your username is Sloth! I chose my username because I’m neither David Lynch nor one of his fans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
    Sounds like you'd hate Picasso and Van Gough too because they didn't create a visual art that anyone's seen in real life either.
    First, as an aside, the comparison of Picasso and Van Gogh to digital rotoscoping is laughable. Too often people bring up these exact two names in discussions like this and it’s either disingenuous or betraying a lack of knowledge on the subject of painting. Second, your statement “they didn’t create a visual art that anyone’s seen in real life” needs clarification. Are you talking about the art style itself? Because they were both a part of larger art movements and their styles are reflected in dozens of prominent artists spread throughout the world during those periods and perhaps hundreds or thousands more who never made the cut of art history. Are you talking about the degree of "realism”? Realism is a tricky thing to talk about, and it’s a bit of a misnomer. There’s nothing real about realism - it’s power is in the representation of various facets of how we perceive the world, and both Picasso and Van Gogh were largely representational artists. Also, when I said "my dreams certainly don't look like that, they don't feel like that, and I would never associate the two. Doing so would be an insult to the visual style of my dreams”, I’m clearly making room for art to go beyond retinal “realism” into the realms of emotion as well as conceptual association, and I’m obviously insinuating that Waking Life failed to do any of that. It’s not my job to write you a treatise on why - which is the reason I wanted to avoid this discussion - because, frankly, how could you argue against it? It would be absurd. Each would largely be attempts to justify and reason out gut reactions and taste. So, a better course for you would be to write out why you feel like Waking Life is an actually good movie and leave it at that, because that’s all you can do. Making bad arguments against me isn’t going to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth
    You said later in your post there's a difference between good surrealism and bad surrealism, you're going to have to be more specific than using the "I don't like it because I know how it's done" and the "I just feel nauseated" argument. There's a lot of films where I know exactly how they achieve certain effects, and yes I can never view them the way a layman would but that doesn't deter from the fact that to someone not experienced in creating that art can be swept away by the effect.
    First, “I don’t like it because I know how it’s done” is a strawman, I shouldn’t have to point that out. I also shouldn’t have to repeat what I said in a different way but I’ll do so. Knowledge of the process of making the film gives a greater degree of insight into it. In this case, it reveals a latent political stance on the part of the director. The stance is one that’s actually running rampant through the contemporary artworld, and it says “I don’t need to work”. It’s the idea that one person, the “real” artist, can give crude and perhaps malformed instructions and content to an army of underlings and have them work like dogs to turn it into something that may or may not be presentable. It references capitalism, exploitation, etc, and is open to a Marxist interpretation. The work was not a labor of love on the part of an artist or artists. It was a highly repetitive, rote exercise on the part of people detached from the original vision or lack thereof as well as all the spoils and credit. This is what the film references to me, and it’s the possibility for future film development that it suggests, and I find it disgusting and reprehensible and unfortunate. Of course, you can argue that there's some degree of this in all film, but Waking Life is obviously a much more extreme example, we're discussing a potential auteur, and in this case talking about the visual style alone.

    Also, “I just feel nauseated” is a great argument because, as I alluded to earlier, it’s absurd to argue against people’s gut reactions. There’s nothing quite as powerful as your visceral response - most everything afterwards is a justification for/explanation of this, and it’s largely the duty of the artist(s) to control this in people. But, if you want me to actually attempt to explain, here goes.. As you probably know rotoscoping leads to a very disorienting visual style filled with a lot of movement - this is obviously the result of imperfect execution, because each subsequent layer is based on the source image rather than the previous, so the “fluttering” effect can be conceived of as random deviations from the mean of the source image. Some people like this and find it appealing because it’s, well, different, but it was never intentional. Linklater also obviously thought that the style and effect lends itself to the transient, impermanent, disorienting nature of dreams. Dreams, however, don’t have coherent, sustained dialogues like you find in this movie. And, unlike the visuals, the dialogue was obviously meant to be something that should be focused on, dwelled on, thought about - something you should pay attention to, give thought to, whatever. The problem, and the nausea, arises because this dialogue that is meant to be paid attention to is overlaid over the disorienting, “fluttering” visuals. There’s a conflict between the two. Of course, some people are likely going to say something along the lines of, “oh, conflict! that’s a good thing right?” Well, no, not necessarily. In some cases it can be, but in this case I think it points more towards an inconsistency, or inadequacy of the director’s vision and is, overall, a poor artistic decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth
    One thing I love about this film is that it's an avenue for people to be exposed to these philosophies *that haven't been before*, you note "why not read about it" well probably because film and books are in many ways fundamentally different mediums that invoke very different inner experiences. Not everyone on the planet knows every nuance of philosophy, but most are interested to one degree or another and this film is a way to reach people that normally don't think to read about philosophy but are open to watching films. It could indeed inspire those same people to later on pick up a book and read about it when they might not have otherwise. At the very least it's an important film, regardless of the arguable precision of its execution.
    I agree that film and books are fundamentally different mediums that invoke different inner experiences, which is why I don’t believe that film is the right medium for giving due diligence to philosophy. Also, your original statement, which I disagreed with, was that you recommended this movie for all INTPs. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe that INTPs are people who “normally don’t think to read about philosophy”. And, regardless, I don’t think that exposing people to nuggets of thought is going to then inspire them to drudge through philosophy tomes. I agree that some people may be inspired, but once they realize that reading philosophy is a lot of hard work (nevermind actually writing it), they’ll be put off. This is why you find a lot of these books with the bookmark tucked within the first chapter or two. Work first, then the reward. It doesn’t work the other way around. Care must be taken when exposing people to radical ideas because it’s highly likely that they won’t put forth the effort to understand the context, the caveats, all of those “ifs”. So, I disagree with your sentiment on a fundamental level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth
    Linklater is known for pushing cinematic boundaries, and I respect anyone that's willing to take the risks that he has. It was a *low budget film* sorry not everyone can afford to pay top dollar to re-invent a new computer animation program for every project they do. Filmmaking is all about being resourceful and practical, while not compromising your overall vision. I will call this film avant-garde, and to me you've failed to make a solid argument as to why that's a bad thing in this case. It's not a traditional narrative... your point?
    Well, first, I have no problem with avant garde films. I never said that it was a bad thing. Also, I never said that I believed Waking Life was avant garde because I definitely don’t see it that way. I see it as more of a hack. It is, of course, resourceful and practical as you say, and low budget - I don’t have a problem with any of this. What I do have a problem with is that all of these shortcuts were taken - I think we both agree, and that film conventions were spurned - I think we both agree, but for me there was nothing to redeem or justify any of this - because the “art” and “philosophy” obviously doesn’t work for me. Simplified more: the shortcuts were taken for the sake of delivery of the content, but the content was bad, and the conventions and traditions were themselves things that could’ve added value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth
    Dreams themselves are not traditional narratives, and they themselves are often illogical and hard to decipher. There's also often a lot of misinformation in dreams, and characters and *shots* don't always seem to make immediate sense. His style in this film is an attempt to reflect that.
    Dreams are not narratives at all, we make up the narratives after awaking. I agree that they are “illogical” in a sense, but I disagree that they’re “hard to decipher” because I don’t believe that they can be “deciphered” - there’s no hidden meaning beyond them being a random sampling of neurons with some degree of weight towards your most recent life experiences. This is in part why I find the film explorations of “dream logic” to be sort of naive and stupid. That’s not to say that I think dreams are stupid and not worth exploring or using as a basis for art, but that attempting cheap mimickry misses the significance of dreams and is not how I’d go about doing it. What significance am I talking about? I personally like the “Oneiric Darwinism” idea in which the semi-randomness of dreams can serve as a test bed for the generation of new ideas and solutions to problems - this of course means that most of what dreams generate is crap that needs to be filtered out or forgotten. So, when a filmmaker presents a bunch of crap attempting to mimic dreams, I have to believe that they’re full of themselves and their own significance in the world, because I’d much prefer that, instead of presenting all of that shit, they actually bothered to do some of the filtering to settle on good ideas. Present only what is powerful, cut the rest, and don’t use “dream logic” as an excuse or explanation for anything ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth
    This reads as very opinion based without solid arguments to back these up, it's like reading "I prefer the color red over the color blue, because red is prettier to me." It's your right to feel that way, and after all we're talking about art. I personally still think the film has a lot to offer, and is trail blazing.
    You’re essentially doing the same thing? Or am I missing the part where you’re presenting your actual ideas and not just responding to something I say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth
    Shit I mean we could say Laurence of Arabia is a shit film because the camera technology wasn't invented yet that could accurately express its true intentions. Ground breaking ideas have to start somewhere. If nothing else, this film will influence future filmmakers that will refine the sloppiness you keep alluding to and lead to some really incredible work later on. That alone is worth giving this film respect.
    Except that, as I hope I’ve made it clear, I see it as bad on every conceivable level of analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by tele View Post
    now i gotta pay more attention to @Sloth 's posts.
    Fellow sister who overpaid.
    Last edited by notdavidlynch; 09-22-2014 at 02:28 PM.

  10. #10
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    2,704
    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    I have two friends who both graduated from AFI (directing) and they both fiercely question the quality of the education, the quality of the student body, and their decisions to attend.
    Ah yes our crankiest and least likely to be employed discipline. What a shocker. I won't reveal which discipline I went there for (although eventually you'll be able to put it together) since revealing I just graduated and not in directing, you can narrow me down to being 1 of 100 people. PS every class is completely from the one before it and the one after it. Even if you get your friends to pry around the class the just graduated, I was smart enough to not tell anyone there I used this forum so you won't be able to find me that way if you so felt inclined.

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    It’s the idea that one person, the “real” artist, can give crude and perhaps malformed instructions and content to an army of underlings and have them work like dogs to turn it into something that may or may not be presentable. It references capitalism, exploitation, etc, and is open to a Marxist interpretation. The work was not a labor of love on the part of an artist or artists. It was a highly repetitive, rote exercise on the part of people detached from the original vision or lack thereof as well as all the spoils and credit.
    It's the FILM industry, it's not a SWEAT SHOP. No one put a gun to these people's head and forced them to do that labor. Get over yourself, I know dozens of "post production monkeys" and they're happy to work on films like these because they often lead to a next step... or even if they don't, it's called passion. No one gets into this industry not expecting to work their asses off. Everyone has to pay their dues. If they wanted more money they should have gone into accounting or another industry. It's bullshit to play the proverbial violin for these people. There's thousands of other people that would love to be a Linklater monkey because it's a chance be apart of something larger than themselves (whether you like it or not he's a successful director and keeps getting better and better, and Boyhood is proof of that).

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    Also, “I just feel nauseated” is a great argument because, as I alluded to earlier, it’s absurd to argue against people’s gut reactions.
    It sounds like you might not have noticed, but you're just one person. For every person you can find that felt "sick" I can find one that didn't. You came up with a heady argument about how the process of rotoscope can nauseate a person. Congrats. I can also come up with a heady argument about how watching any moving image on a screen (rotoscope or not) can nauseate a person. It really irritates me when people speak about art in exact terms. This is ART pal. By its very nature it's subjective and to call anyone an "idiot" for enjoying a piece of art is the most destructive and pointlessly negative approach towards any kind of intellectually honest conversation about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    I agree that film and books are fundamentally different mediums that invoke different inner experiences, which is why I don’t believe that film is the right medium for giving due diligence to philosophy. Also, your original statement, which I disagreed with, was that you recommended this movie for all INTPs. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe that INTPs are people who “normally don’t think to read about philosophy”.
    It sounds like you need to go out and meet some more INTPs in real life. I was born with a slight reading learning disability (I get by, obviously. I've made it work, and have thrived. It's been a tough road). I'm less inclined to read things, I take most of my information in from audio books and documentaries (which someone not inclined to read about philosophy can find many documentaries that can help them along in learning more about it). I've known several other confirmed INTPs and they were either technology geeks (didn't read about philosophy, though interested in talking about it) or they were political nerds (only read about philosophy peripherally, and often didn't get exposed to certain philosophical ideas in a head on manner like this film has). Get over yourself, the world is a big place.

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    Simplified more: the shortcuts were taken for the sake of delivery of the content, but the content was bad, and the conventions and traditions were themselves things that could’ve added value.
    How do you know that? I find it doubtful. This film came out in 2001, and Linklater isn't known for rushing through and frivolously throwing out work. He takes his time with each piece. I believe he resorted to those methods because that's all he was able to do with his budget and the technological advances of the time. If you've read an article quoting Linklater saying otherwise, I'd love to see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    Dreams are not narratives at all, we make up the narratives after awaking. I agree that they are “illogical” in a sense, but I disagree that they’re “hard to decipher” because I don’t believe that they can be “deciphered” - there’s no hidden meaning beyond them being a random sampling of neurons with some degree of weight towards your most recent life experiences. This is in part why I find the film explorations of “dream logic” to be sort of naive and stupid.
    So if dreams can't be deciphered than why were you irritated about why you couldn't understand every choice Linklater made in that film? Also, once again, just because you personally find this particular film as naive and stupid doesn't change the fact that it's ground breaking and important. BTW before you call everyone who likes it stupid, and call Linklater stupid... let's see your script for the next dream film. I mean, since it's so piss poor terrible you must be able to create a work that's at the very least on par with this crap... right? At least in script form, right? How about your director buddies? If I'm not mistaken you just asked in another thread how to do kickstarter so this oughta be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    You’re essentially doing the same thing? Or am I missing the part where you’re presenting your actual ideas and not just responding to something I say.
    Yes it's called an opinion about art. I'm not name calling like a little kid. I don't think people are "stupid" or "an idiot" for simply disagreeing with me about it. I don't want to make any enemies on this forum. It's a work of art, I can rip apart every film you've suggested in this thread. I'd rather not because I have better things to do, and I'm often very busy. We don't need to like the same things, but you're going to make this forum very unpleasant if you keep spouting about how everyone that doesn't agree with you is an idiot.



    Edit: This ended up with a more hostile tone than I intended. My overall point is: "Interesting perspective, and you make some solid points. I still don't agree with you. I'd appreciate it if you stopped calling me an idiot."
    Last edited by Sloth; 09-22-2014 at 10:41 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Ricky Gervais. Genius or overrated?
    By Browser in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-05-2017, 06:20 AM
  2. What can you do when life gives you lemons?
    By Blorg in forum The Playground
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 10-16-2016, 04:52 PM
  3. Dark-side of Genius Test ~ Unique & Timed format
    By OrionzRevenge in forum Online Tests
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-20-2014, 04:23 PM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 05:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •