WillKill4Food said:
I never said anything contrary to this.
Don't read to much into what follows:
Let's assign Casablanca a theoretical film value score of 999.
Let's assign Plan 9 From Outer Space a theoretical film value score of 1.
Let's give TDK a 650.
Let's give KotCS a 649.
Even if KotCS is only ever the slightest bit crappier than TDK (and I would argue that KotCS is exponentially crappier), 650 > 649. Unless you're going to argue that KotCS is the better film (which you don't seem willing to do), then whether TDK is "Hollywood fodder" is irrelevant.
Will – what’s the point of me trying to argue that KOTCS is the better movie??? I don’t need to… I preferred KOTCS to TDK and that should be enough. What I’m saying is that you can’t demonstrate that TDK is any better (unless you have a scientific equation or stone written tablet from God that proves otherwise)… and, using your score system, even if TDK is 1 point better than KOTC; it’s still closer to KOTCS than it is to Casablanca (which was sort of my point in the first place).
WillKill4Food said:
TDK had an emotional basis beyond the sit-com level of KotCS. TDK lacked Tarzan antics and bad CGI. TDK asked moral questions. On at least some level, TDK referenced some aspects of current events and the war on terror. I'm not sure liking TDK over KotCS makes you have better taste, but I think there's the distinct possibility that preferring KotCS over TDK indicates that you have worse taste. Again, I think the genre concept lays out the situation very well. TDK is among the best superhero films; Raiders is among the best adventure films. However, KotCS is not anywhere close to Raiders in quality, and I don't think you could find a single person at the Raven who would say otherwise. KotCS is not the better film.
I don’t agree. You are assigning merit to a movie simply to justify your own emotional response to it… ”Moral questions? “War on terror”? TDK is about as intellectually challenging as a bath. Unfortunately by attempting to take the intellectual high ground vis-à-vis an action movie about a man who fights crime dressed up as a bat, you’ve actually undermined your entire argument….
WillKill4Food said:
That's clearly a matter of personal taste. Did you prefer KotCS to TDK?
As I stated above, I’d take any Indiana Jones movie over TDK (including
Temple of Doom). That’s not to say that I hate TDK… as I don’t… but I certinaly don’t believe it to be a great movie.
WillKill4Food said:
Why? To make a point you must first provide a warrant. You're giving us conclusions without reasons. To put it into completely different terms, you would not say that killing an old man is insignificant because, oh look, the Holocaust. That's a horrible analogy, I fully acknowledge this. But the point is that degrees are important.
I'm not talking about film masterpieces, and you clearly do not think that film must be a masterpiece to be enjoyable. But you have not yet been willing to say that a person's taste is not indicated at all by their consumption. If you can have high-brow and low-brow art, why is it not possible to have highs and lows within each?
You ask why? You first have to ask yourself if you believe in the concepts of high and low art. If not, then surely it can be argued that every expression is a legitimate form of art… ergo any assigning of value/scoring becomes completely subjective.
However, if you do believe in the concept of high and low art, you then have to ask yourself where does a movie about a man dressed as a bat manufactured by a bourgeois, Capitalist Western system fit into that criteria for art.
WillKill4Food said:
Insignificant for gaining nearly universal critical acclaim and redefining the superhero genre?
Titanic had lots of acclaim and won more Oscars… so I’m assuming that if you prefer TDK to
Titanic then it probably indicates you have inferior taste… nes pa? Also, not entirely sure how TDK has ‘redefined the superhero genre’??? It was a popular movie for sure… but surely we’re not going to use popularity as a gauge for worthiness?
WillKill4Food said:
To think it all "equal" would be ignorant, and I imagine that the head chefs at those restaurants are most likely pompous arses if they think such a thing. Degrees matter.
Believe me when I say that I have quite a few friends in the British movie/TV industry; and they find it highly amusing when I tell them that people are willing to argue the toss between what’s better… Batman, Indiana Jones or Star Wars. When you look at the genuine artistry involved in a movie like, for example, The King’s Speech; TDK and KOTCS don’t even register… the degrees between them are indivisible. You may find it a worthwhile pursuit debating why a KFC is better than a McDonalds, but I find it quite depressing…
WillKill4Food said:
Now see, this is just ridiculous. You've completely turned around everything that I have said. I have never said that TDK represents the best of cinema. I've never claimed to be a connoisseur of film on any level.
I adopted the fast food analogy myself. A burger is not just a burger. Ingredients matter, and KotCS was stale and unfilling.
Never said you were Will. I specifically used the pronoun “one”.
As far as food analogies go… KOTCS may have had some “stale” and “unfilling” ingredients… but I found that preferable to the complex carbs that constituted TDK… left me feeling uncomfortable and nauseas.
WillKill4Food said:
"Before pop art, there was such a thing as bad taste. Now there's kitsch, schlock, camp, and porn." - Don DeLillo, Running Dog
"Bad taste" is a term used by the ruling class to put down the bourgeois middle classes who started to seize influence and power (historically by the growth of commerce and industry) from the wealthy few. I too don't subscribe to the view that people are born with taste and standing, as it's a simple method for the ruling classes to legitimise their position (inherited power).