Author Topic: Avengers (Read 18398 times)

Ironica · « **Reply #50 on:** May 07, 2012, 05:36:53 AM »

I see most "artistic" films like modern art. To those who "study" art, modern arts will look wonderful as they dive into different meanings it has for them. To everyone else, it looks like a three year old threw paint at a canvas and called it art.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #51 on:** May 07, 2012, 08:35:35 AM »

I think art is impossible to pin down to such measures as you want, MKC. What makes Van Gogh a better painter than me? Probably because he can actually paint, but that doesn't explain it artistically. Brush strokes? Whose to say my strokes are not better than his? What does it even mean to feel emotions coming from a painting? A painting can't give off emotions.

Art is defined by people. When a new form of art emerges, it's generally not recognized as art until later (again, see Van Gogh--everybody hated his works initially), but there is a certain element that makes it art, as recognized by the elites (in that area) of society.

So like painting there are certain elements that are present in all art (brush strokes, what the painting is of, colors used, etc.) that are truly done masterfully, in a different, clear light.
In movies, as we've mentioned before, some of these things are plot, character development, themes, subtleties, and more. These are in all films, but the quality of them varies. In TDK (which I'm not nearly as familiar with as Batman Begins, but since you just ignored Olijar I guess I'll take a shot at it), the themes presented are chaos, subjective morality, freedom, and image. These things are powerfully presented as Batman struggles to keep up with the Joker's plans, attempting to bring him in instead of killing him, while also struggling with the people turning on him, and then when he takes matters into his own hands Mr. Fox has to leave, leaving Bruce wondering what he's truly doing, but without time to think it through because of everything else. So that's a very narrow synopsis of some of the themes presented, most of which are presented in such a way that at the end of the film, if you stop to take it in, you'll think about them yourself. Question what you think on such things, especially in light of the events went on.

In contrast, The Avengers only theme presented is unity. Which is displayed quite wonderfully, that when evil (why Loki was wrong I still don't know) rears it's ugly head we should unite against the common foe, no matter how scary it is, or how much we hate each other. A theme that was briefly mentioned was the idea of humans being made to rule, but it was never touched after one statement, which was very poorly explained. I honestly don't think I can give it any more credit than that, and honestly unity isn't really an interesting theme, so The Avengers rates pretty low.

More later, unless somebody else wants to cover the other areas. Subtleties really won't be touched since most of us have only seen The Avengers once, so it wouldn't be an accurate comparison.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #52 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:00:49 AM »

My wife and I had heard all the hype about TDK and watched it one time. Still in shock, we watched it a second time to see if there was something we had missed. After the second time we threw it in the trash. Just speaking an opinion here, but if sadism is "art" now, then I don't want any part of it (like most of what the NEA now calls "art"). I get that the movie explored dark themes, and I think the Joker played his role very well. But we just felt "gloomy" after the movie, and we don't see the point of spending our time to feel that way. I especially don't like how our "hero" encourages the police commisioner to perpetuate a lie, no matter how "heroic" of him it was.

Regarding the Avengers, we'd love to see it. But we looked it up on Screenit.com first (as we do for all movies now). Until Hollywood stops making these movies where the heroes keep cursing (which it seems they never will), we'll have to wait until we can see edited versions. (Again, just our personal convictions here. Not trying to get "preachy".)

lp670sv · « **Reply #53 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:22:19 AM »

Wings of Music · « **Reply #54 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:40:01 AM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on May 07, 2012, 10:00:49 AM

My wife and I had heard all the hype about TDK and watched it one time. Still in shock, we watched it a second time to see if there was something we had missed. After the second time we threw it in the trash. Just speaking an opinion here, but if sadism is "art" now, then I don't want any part of it (like most of what the NEA now calls "art"). I get that the movie explored dark themes, and I think the Joker played his role very well. But we just felt "gloomy" after the movie, and we don't see the point of spending our time to feel that way. I especially don't like how our "hero" encourages the police commisioner to perpetuate a lie, no matter how "heroic" of him it was.

That's the thing about TDK, it comes off as somewhat offensive to some people. It depends on what you're looking for in a film, for yourself I can see that you're looking to be uplifted, which is an awesome goal. My goal is to philosophically challenged, I loved TDK because it presented me with moral dilemmas, I had to ask myself, what would I do? It also really showed the biblical truth of the depravity of man very well, in fact that's what I liked most about the movie. I didn't feel gloomy after TDK I felt mentally stimulated, and I spent most of the rest of the day thinking about complex moral ideas and contemplating what can actually be done to counter depravity in society.

I understand your objection to the film, I will agree that it's not for everyone, but from a philosophical standpoint TDK is one of the best movies I have every seen.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #55 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:42:28 AM »

This thread is silly. Objective definitions of artistic value are useless. Someone could try to explain for hours why a Picasso painting is artistically better than my 8 year-old niece's drawing, but I still have a perfectly legitimate and arguable position that the drawing is artistically better. Why? Because all art is purely subjective. One can present arguments why TDK is a better movie, but stating as an objective fact that it is more artistic is silly. And that is a fact.

Chris · « **Reply #56 on:** May 07, 2012, 12:01:08 PM »

I can back up my opinion that The Dark Knight is a more artful film with multiple examples of how the film executes it's ideas and conveys its messages masterfully. I can also back up my opinion with the fact that the film critics who studied this and do this for a living agree with me in a pretty large majority. "Amateur film critic" is something of a hobby of mine, and I'm able to further back my position by simply having a very large amount of exposure to film and literature over the last four years. I can laugh at the notion that The Avengers is "a masterfully woven tale" because I cannot count the number of plots that I've been exposed to that were far superior to The Avengers using all my digits. If "amateur film critic" isn't good enough, then I simply point to the people who have hundreds of times more exposure than I do.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #57 on:** May 07, 2012, 12:09:30 PM »

Quote from: Chris on May 07, 2012, 12:01:08 PM

I can back up my opinion that The Dark Knight is a more artful film with multiple examples of how the film executes it's ideas and conveys its messages masterfully. I can also back up my opinion with the fact that the film critics who studied this and do this for a living agree with me in a pretty large majority. "Amateur film critic" is something of a hobby of mine, and I'm able to further back my position by simply having a very large amount of exposure to film and literature over the last four years. I can laugh at the notion that The Avengers is "a masterfully woven tale" because I cannot count the number of plots that I've been exposed to that were far superior to The Avengers using all my digits. If "amateur film critic" isn't good enough, then I simply point to the people who have hundreds of times more exposure than I do.

Yes, but those same types of critics say that a cross soaking in urine is "artistic" too, don't they? What is "artful" or "artistic" is already subjective, depending on who you ask. If we can agree on this, then we can certainly agree that what is MORE artistic than something else is also "in the eyes of the beholder".

Why not just say "I liked this movie better than this movie" and leave it at that? I don't know why we have to argue over which is more "artistic".

Chris · « **Reply #58 on:** May 07, 2012, 12:35:45 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on May 07, 2012, 12:09:30 PM

Yes, but those same types of critics say that a cross soaking in urine is "artistic" too, don't they? What is "artful" or "artistic" is already subjective, depending on who you ask. If we can agree on this, then we can certainly agree that what is MORE artistic than something else is also "in the eyes of the beholder".

My mine point here is one of exposure, and the art of film differs in key ways from "traditional" art, so more than likely, no, those same critics would not say a cross soaking in urine is artistic, though I do understand your point. In my opinion, what makes a film more artistic than another is the types of ideas it presents and how it presents them. It's a little more straightforward than "traditional" art, and it's much, much easier to convey those ideas and the emotion behind them in a film. Now that said then, I think exposure is a huge part of being able to gauge what makes a film artistic or not. Again, having exposed myself to the top tier of literature like Faulkner, and having watched movies with good plots that have other bored me to death like Citizen Kane, I think I am more qualified to say "this film executed better ideas in a more sophisticated manner than this one," than someone who tends to enjoy the regular summer blockbusters and read Lord of the Flies for high school. If someone wants to simply chalk that down to arrogance, then I'll simply point to the people who, again, have a lot more experience and exposure to literature and film, who I tend to agree with a lot more than I don't.

Quote

Why not just say "I liked this movie better than this movie" and leave it at that? I don't know why we have to argue over which is more "artistic".

The main thing here is that The Dark Knight and The Avengers have different goals. While both movies ultimately sought to entertain, I believe The Dark Knight went further than that, and The Avengers really didn't. The argument isn't so much which movie is better (I've stated several times already that I found The Avengers to be more watchable and enjoyable), but whether The Avengers presented itself in as high quality as TDK did.

lp670sv · « **Reply #59 on:** May 07, 2012, 12:45:30 PM »

Found your horse man.

STAMP · « **Reply #60 on:** May 07, 2012, 01:39:46 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 07, 2012, 10:42:28 AM

This thread is silly. Objective definitions of artistic value are useless. Someone could try to explain for hours why a Picasso painting is artistically better than my 8 year-old niece's drawing, but I still have a perfectly legitimate and arguable position that the drawing is artistically better. Why? Because all art is purely subjective. One can present arguments why TDK is a better movie, but stating as an objective fact that it is more artistic is silly. And that is a fact.

I give this post 5 stars out of 5. And I'm a very experienced and objective post reader and critic.

cookie monster · « **Reply #61 on:** May 07, 2012, 01:40:19 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on May 07, 2012, 12:45:30 PM

Found your horse man.

That picture is AWESOME!!!!!

cookie monster · « **Reply #62 on:** May 07, 2012, 01:52:32 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on May 07, 2012, 01:39:46 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 07, 2012, 10:42:28 AM
This thread is silly. Objective definitions of artistic value are useless. Someone could try to explain for hours why a Picasso painting is artistically better than my 8 year-old niece's drawing, but I still have a perfectly legitimate and arguable position that the drawing is artistically better. Why? Because all art is purely subjective. One can present arguments why TDK is a better movie, but stating as an objective fact that it is more artistic is silly. And that is a fact.

I give this post 5 stars out of 5. And I'm a very experienced and objective post reader and critic.

I gave it a Plus 1 (

)

Professoralstad · « **Reply #63 on:** May 07, 2012, 02:26:40 PM »

Quote from: Chris on May 07, 2012, 12:35:45 PM

In my opinion, what makes a film more artistic than another is the types of ideas it presents and how it presents them. It's a little more straightforward than "traditional" art, and it's much, much easier to convey those ideas and the emotion behind them in a film.

Thus my point. Earlier in the thread, there was a lot of "inarguable" and "no legitimate argument"-type language being thrown around. My point was that everything that can be defined as artistic is arguable, and there can be legitimate arguments for the artistic value of anything based on someone's opinion.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #64 on:** May 07, 2012, 02:36:30 PM »

Break out the shaving cream, because we're about to get Beardsley'd.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #65 on:** May 07, 2012, 02:38:47 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 07, 2012, 02:26:40 PM

Quote from: Chris on May 07, 2012, 12:35:45 PM
In my opinion, what makes a film more artistic than another is the types of ideas it presents and how it presents them. It's a little more straightforward than "traditional" art, and it's much, much easier to convey those ideas and the emotion behind them in a film.

Thus my point. Earlier in the thread, there was a lot of "inarguable" and "no legitimate argument"-type language being thrown around. My point was that everything that can be defined as artistic is arguable, and there can be legitimate arguments for the artistic value of anything based on someone's opinion.

"Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong."

cookie monster · « **Reply #66 on:** May 07, 2012, 05:52:59 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on May 07, 2012, 02:38:47 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 07, 2012, 02:26:40 PM
Quote from: Chris on May 07, 2012, 12:35:45 PM
In my opinion, what makes a film more artistic than another is the types of ideas it presents and how it presents them. It's a little more straightforward than "traditional" art, and it's much, much easier to convey those ideas and the emotion behind them in a film.

Thus my point. Earlier in the thread, there was a lot of "inarguable" and "no legitimate argument"-type language being thrown around. My point was that everything that can be defined as artistic is arguable, and there can be legitimate arguments for the artistic value of anything based on someone's opinion.
"Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong."

And me not having an opinion totally discards the theory of being wrong.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #67 on:** May 08, 2012, 05:10:53 PM »

I am not a master of film, I haven't studied film at all. However I have, to some extent, studied stories. Plot barely matters, plot is essentially the frame you are telling your story in, yes it is important, you wouldn't have a story without it, but you can take any plot and make it either good or bad (or anywhere along that spectrum).

Secondly, every story and every piece of art is subjective, that's why its art, if it wasn't subjective it would be science.

Thirdly I will not argue the artistic value of either movie, since, a) It can't be done in an objective matter, yes I can say things that I find good, or that the majority of critics find good, or <insert group here> find good, but that is all. b) I have only watched the Avengers once, and I haven't watched The Dark Knight recently, so maybe after I've watched Avengers 6 or 7 times I will have a better idea and TDK a time or 2 more.

Also since the Marvel Cinematic universe is all linked you get all kinds of cool things if you pay attention (and have some knowledge of the comics) and you might say "not everyone has that" but since I do, I have a lot of fun noticing things in the movies that other people might miss. Like did any of you see the Infinity Gauntlet in Thor?

Anyway, the most important thing in any fiction is to entertain, that is why we invented it. Second is to bring about ideas and such. This is coming from someone who is trying to be a writer, so take my opinions for what they are worth, and it's probably not very much.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #68 on:** May 08, 2012, 05:36:24 PM »

Perhaps art is the wrong term to use for what Wraith, Chris, and I consider to be art. If it's to be held that art = entertainment value (a definition that I don't really like, but that a lot of people seem to uphold) then fine, Avengers > TDK.

However, if art means something more than entertainment (great depth, morals, plot, etc.) then TDK > Avengers.

I personally don't watch movies to be entertained, (I play flash games for that

) I watch them to be intellectually stimulated, to engross myself in the film, and to contemplate what ideas the film is trying to convey. I would consider that a far more 'artistic' goal than just being entertained. If you don't think that my goal is artistic then well, to each his own, but if you do think that movies should be watched for more than just entertainment, I think that my argument of TDK > Avengers makes more sense.

STAMP · « **Reply #69 on:** May 08, 2012, 05:38:54 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on May 08, 2012, 05:10:53 PM

Like did any of you see the Infinity Gauntlet in Thor?

SPOILER ALERT! for Avengers 2

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #70 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:04:58 PM »

Quote from: Wings of Music on May 08, 2012, 05:36:24 PM

I personally don't watch movies to be entertained, (I play flash games for that ) I watch them to be intellectually stimulated, to engross myself in the film, and to contemplate what ideas the film is trying to convey. I would consider that a far more 'artistic' goal than just being entertained. If you don't think that my goal is artistic then well, to each his own, but if you do think that movies should be watched for more than just entertainment, I think that my argument of TDK > Avengers makes more sense.

I watch movies to be entertained, however I get far far more entertainment from being intellectually stimulated and analyzing the things that I'm watching (or reading or listening to or whatever), in fact I don't know what other people consider entertaining, but I love to pick things apart and analyze them.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #71 on:** May 09, 2012, 02:26:03 PM »

Art is ponies.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #72 on:** May 09, 2012, 03:41:43 PM »

no ponies here please

And as to TDK/Avengers comparison that has sprung up. I think that almost everyone would agree with me that the Avengers is far more approachable. That doesn't mean it makes it better or worse than TDK but I have a feeling as a whole, the Avengers will have a greater fan base in years to come. Personally I far and away preferred TDK over the Avengers but I still enjoyed the movie. (Unlike The Hunger Games where the best monment was the Hobbit advertisement)

To just talk about the movie, I'd have to say this is the first time I've left a movie with the Hulk in it and was Exteamly happy. Bruce wasn't a sniveling little wuss and the Hulk was actually freakishly powerful (how he is supposed to be!) Hulk/Banner stole the show for me.

News:

Author Topic: Avengers (Read 18398 times)

Ironica

Warrior_Monk

Chris

Chris

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk