I am baffled by people who cannot believe that the guy who spent years of his life making a labour of love would want people to experience that labour of love in the best way he knows to get the full effect, and might perhaps venture a mild statement to that effect. Or even a strong one!
I mean sure you can disagree and say actually I will watch Dunkirk on this reflection of a smart watch under neon lighting while playing Candy Crush or whatever thank you very much but the how dare you with which some people seem to react to Scorsese saying this is very odd.
Exactly. for you a movie is 2 hours of killing time
for a director that's thousands of hours of work that took over their lives for literally years.
Even if you don't agree with them have a little perspective here
That’s fair and I actually don’t think Scorsese’s comments in that article are bad. This particular case is not a bad one. In general terms. That said, I apply Death of the Author, which I feel rather strongly about, and am not really interested in hearing where I *should* be watching their work. If a creator wants to make a suggestion, I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with trying to exert too much control over the way the viewer chooses to experience something once the creator has released their work into the wild.
Telling people they should only watch in X, Y, Z ways smells similar to when certain authors back at the advent of the (legal) eBook industry refused to allow their works to be published electronically because they felt their books should be experienced with the physical texture that comes from holding paper. I can empathize and even sympathize with this perspective, but philosophically I believe a creator has the first through last word in their text or first through last frame in a film to tell their story, nothing more. It’s up to the viewer to decide how to watch it.
I get there are some technical considerations with film. I take more issue with this kind of thing with written forms. Talking about how an audience should watch a film kind of triggered my opinions about that.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Is there anyone here actually outraged? That doesn't seem to be the case to me. I feel like people are talking past each other with various shades of "meh".
Anyone who has read the actual quote or spent more than 2 minutes thinking about the context understands that he's not actually demanding anything from anyone...
Scorsese's next project: a reboot of Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back where it's him and De Niro going around kicking people's asses for watching The Irishman on their phones.
Is there anyone here actually outraged? That doesn't seem to be the case to me. I feel like people are talking past each other with various shades of "meh".
Anyone who has read the actual quote or spent more than 2 minutes thinking about the context understands that he's not actually demanding anything from anyone...
Totally agree. It doesn't bother me in any way. I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about the concept of art ownership but see how I may have come off as bothered by the comment.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Is there anyone here actually outraged? That doesn't seem to be the case to me. I feel like people are talking past each other with various shades of "meh".
Anyone who has read the actual quote or spent more than 2 minutes thinking about the context understands that he's not actually demanding anything from anyone...
I think the proper term is "annoyed."
I have other issues with Martin but this shit is small potatoes.
Knives Out is the best movie I've seen this year and now I feel like I have to see it again knowing everything before adequately being able to review it.
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
Ninjeff on
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, Hitchcock near demanded studios block anyone from entering after Psycho began.
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
see also: Valve designing a game specifically for VR and everyone pitching a fit that they can't also play it on a potato.
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
see also: Valve designing a game specifically for VR and everyone pitching a fit that they can't also play it on a potato.
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
I think this is more an issue of artist (or probably whoever is making money off the artist) marketing the piece of art incorrectly or misleadingly.
If you’re a musician and you made an album that sounds like crap on cheap earbuds and then you release that album to Spotify (or some other platform where the majority of users will listen to it using cheap earbuds) then I think it’s perfectly fair criticism for the people listening to it as offered to them by the artist to say it sucks.
Same if a movie looks bad in 2D but it’s still sold in 2D I think criticism that it’s bad in 2D is fair. If it would only be released in 3D and people complain that it’s not available in 2D then THAT complaint would be unreasonable.
Edit: To be fair I don't think Scorsese's comments do this. It's fine to say he think his movie will be more enjoyable in some way. But if, for example, his movie had color issue that made it hard to see on a mobile device I think it would be unfair of him to deflect that criticism as saying it wasn't intended to be consumed that way, when Netflix is offering (and profiting from) if being available in mobile.
I mean, Hitchcock near demanded studios block anyone from entering after Psycho began.
Because before that people used to just show up and watch a film... at whatever point it was at when they got there? And they just stuck around for thr start to get back to when they first showed up? Sounds insane to me but so does a lot of things that people used to take for granted.
I mean, Hitchcock near demanded studios block anyone from entering after Psycho began.
Because before that people used to just show up and watch a film... at whatever point it was at when they got there? And they just stuck around for thr start to get back to when they first showed up? Sounds insane to me but so does a lot of things that people used to take for granted.
Look, don't fucking ask me. I get nervous when I am getting into a movie during the trailers
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
I think this is more an issue of artist (or probably whoever is making money off the artist) marketing the piece of art incorrectly or misleadingly.
If you’re a musician and you made an album that sounds like crap on cheap earbuds and then you release that album to Spotify (or some other platform where the majority of users will listen to it using cheap earbuds) then I think it’s perfectly fair criticism for the people listening to it as offered to them by the artist to say it sucks.
Same if a movie looks bad in 2D but it’s still sold in 2D I think criticism that it’s bad in 2D is fair. If it would only be released in 3D and people complain that it’s not available in 2D then THAT complaint would be unreasonable.
Edit: To be fair I don't think Scorsese's comments do this. It's fine to say he think his movie will be more enjoyable in some way. But if, for example, his movie had color issue that made it hard to see on a mobile device I think it would be unfair of him to deflect that criticism as saying it wasn't intended to be consumed that way, when Netflix is offering (and profiting from) if being available in mobile.
Everything sounds like crap on cheap earbuds.
Thats why they're cheap.
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
I think this is more an issue of artist (or probably whoever is making money off the artist) marketing the piece of art incorrectly or misleadingly.
If you’re a musician and you made an album that sounds like crap on cheap earbuds and then you release that album to Spotify (or some other platform where the majority of users will listen to it using cheap earbuds) then I think it’s perfectly fair criticism for the people listening to it as offered to them by the artist to say it sucks.
Same if a movie looks bad in 2D but it’s still sold in 2D I think criticism that it’s bad in 2D is fair. If it would only be released in 3D and people complain that it’s not available in 2D then THAT complaint would be unreasonable.
Edit: To be fair I don't think Scorsese's comments do this. It's fine to say he think his movie will be more enjoyable in some way. But if, for example, his movie had color issue that made it hard to see on a mobile device I think it would be unfair of him to deflect that criticism as saying it wasn't intended to be consumed that way, when Netflix is offering (and profiting from) if being available in mobile.
Tangential, but whether or not an album is released on Spotify is not always (or even usually) up to the artists themselves.
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
I think this is more an issue of artist (or probably whoever is making money off the artist) marketing the piece of art incorrectly or misleadingly.
If you’re a musician and you made an album that sounds like crap on cheap earbuds and then you release that album to Spotify (or some other platform where the majority of users will listen to it using cheap earbuds) then I think it’s perfectly fair criticism for the people listening to it as offered to them by the artist to say it sucks.
Same if a movie looks bad in 2D but it’s still sold in 2D I think criticism that it’s bad in 2D is fair. If it would only be released in 3D and people complain that it’s not available in 2D then THAT complaint would be unreasonable.
Edit: To be fair I don't think Scorsese's comments do this. It's fine to say he think his movie will be more enjoyable in some way. But if, for example, his movie had color issue that made it hard to see on a mobile device I think it would be unfair of him to deflect that criticism as saying it wasn't intended to be consumed that way, when Netflix is offering (and profiting from) if being available in mobile.
Everything sounds like crap on cheap earbuds.
Thats why they're cheap.
Well obviously, but if a person comments that an artist's music sounded bad while they listened to it using what the artist and distributor know will be one of the main ways people consume their art and the artist responds with "my music is only meant to be listened to in good speakers" I don't think the musician would have many defenders.
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
I think this is more an issue of artist (or probably whoever is making money off the artist) marketing the piece of art incorrectly or misleadingly.
If you’re a musician and you made an album that sounds like crap on cheap earbuds and then you release that album to Spotify (or some other platform where the majority of users will listen to it using cheap earbuds) then I think it’s perfectly fair criticism for the people listening to it as offered to them by the artist to say it sucks.
Same if a movie looks bad in 2D but it’s still sold in 2D I think criticism that it’s bad in 2D is fair. If it would only be released in 3D and people complain that it’s not available in 2D then THAT complaint would be unreasonable.
Edit: To be fair I don't think Scorsese's comments do this. It's fine to say he think his movie will be more enjoyable in some way. But if, for example, his movie had color issue that made it hard to see on a mobile device I think it would be unfair of him to deflect that criticism as saying it wasn't intended to be consumed that way, when Netflix is offering (and profiting from) if being available in mobile.
Everything sounds like crap on cheap earbuds.
Thats why they're cheap.
Well obviously, but if a person comments that an artist's music sounded bad while they listened to it using what the artist and distributor know will be one of the main ways people consume their art and the artist responds with "my music is only meant to be listened to in good speakers" I don't think the musician would have many defenders.
If a chef makes a meal for someone, and they then leave it one the table for 20 minutes then complain the meal is cold it is not -in my opinion- the fault of the chef.
Which of course doesnt stop the person from leaving a 1 star review on the internet.
Same with music. If a lot of time is spent making the audio sound good, and you chose to listen to audio on crap speakers then.....no that isnt the artists fault.
If you make movies to be displayed on nice screens and people play it on 6 inch phones... (though honestly, phone screens are amazing now but...)
And hell, im not defending his statement. I'm still miffed at his "I havent watched any Marvel movies, but they arent cinema..." nonsense.
But i AM saying that i understand where it comes from. Artists spend a lot of time making something, and often times that thing gets used or viewed in a disposable way that doesnt lend itself to the best experience.
But that never stops the "everyone is a critic" train from rolling through the internet. It can be frustrating at times i am sure.
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
I think this is more an issue of artist (or probably whoever is making money off the artist) marketing the piece of art incorrectly or misleadingly.
If you’re a musician and you made an album that sounds like crap on cheap earbuds and then you release that album to Spotify (or some other platform where the majority of users will listen to it using cheap earbuds) then I think it’s perfectly fair criticism for the people listening to it as offered to them by the artist to say it sucks.
Same if a movie looks bad in 2D but it’s still sold in 2D I think criticism that it’s bad in 2D is fair. If it would only be released in 3D and people complain that it’s not available in 2D then THAT complaint would be unreasonable.
Edit: To be fair I don't think Scorsese's comments do this. It's fine to say he think his movie will be more enjoyable in some way. But if, for example, his movie had color issue that made it hard to see on a mobile device I think it would be unfair of him to deflect that criticism as saying it wasn't intended to be consumed that way, when Netflix is offering (and profiting from) if being available in mobile.
Everything sounds like crap on cheap earbuds.
Thats why they're cheap.
Well obviously, but if a person comments that an artist's music sounded bad while they listened to it using what the artist and distributor know will be one of the main ways people consume their art and the artist responds with "my music is only meant to be listened to in good speakers" I don't think the musician would have many defenders.
If a chef makes a meal for someone, and they then leave it one the table for 20 minutes then complain the meal is cold it is not -in my opinion- the fault of the chef.
Which of course doesnt stop the person from leaving a 1 star review on the internet.
Same with music. If a lot of time is spent making the audio sound good, and you chose to listen to audio on crap speakers then.....no that isnt the artists fault.
If you make movies to be displayed on nice screens and people play it on 6 inch phones... (though honestly, phone screens are amazing now but...)
And hell, im not defending his statement. I'm still miffed at his "I havent watched any Marvel movies, but they arent cinema..." nonsense.
But i AM saying that i understand where it comes from. Artists spend a lot of time making something, and often times that thing gets used or viewed in a disposable way that doesnt lend itself to the best experience.
But that never stops the "everyone is a critic" train from rolling through the internet. It can be frustrating at times i am sure.
I think the restaurant advertising and selling "20 minute old" food would be more comparable. Or if the chef knew before hand that a huge amount of the people that eat his food wait 20 minutes before actually eating it. Or like mentioned above if you know your art will be displayed during the day, but you only made it for night viewing. In this case the consumers using earbuds/phones are consuming the art in the way it's been presented and advertised to them as a valid way to consume it.
I can see merit in creating something for a specific format and then being annoyed when people dont intake the art in that format.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
There was an anecdote I heard about a particular band who, back in the '80s-'90s, when they were in the studio making an album, they used to have the producer or engineer run them off a basic cassette tape of the recording so they could hear it back on a crappy little stereo and not just the high-end studio gear. That way they knew how the recording would come across on cheap, basic or crap equipment; they knew that in the real world that's what it would be played on a lot of the time for many reasons. The end results were albums that sounded great on anything.
Seems like running off a streaming-quality MP3 and giving it a listen on cheap earbuds would be the modern equivalent, and perhaps something that should be considered in the studio these days. You don't need to compromise the quality of your product, as proven in the earlier anecdote, but you can take into account your audience's preferences and equipment.
I can actually understand Kubrick running around and bitching at theaters, because theaters are generally understood to be the definitive version of a movie. Going to a theater can be rightfully interpreted as "I want to see this the way the director intended", and so the director making sure the theaters are accurately representing his work makes sense.
If he was sitting in the bushes outside your house yelling at you about your contrast setting on the TV, that would be a little different.
(Conversely, if he was beating you with a pipe wrench because you were watching his movie with frame interpolation turned on, that would be completely justified.)
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Hitchcock is a great example of an under-appreciated phenomenon: the form of the art and the industry are frequently advanced not by the slow, grinding progress of the Hollywood system, which anyway is content to trod the same ground ad infinitum, but by the exacting standards or untrammeled ambitions of a lone filmmaker with either the influence or the accidental freedom to pursue their vision. Rather than haranguing directors for preferring the way their work is seen, we should be applauding their passion and idealism. It’s individual directors who keep film and other even more dead formats alive, who preserve and pass down the art of black and white photography, who push special and computer effects farther than ever before, who invent new equipment and techniques that soon become de rigueur. Distribution is no different, from the earliest days of auteurs experimenting with the additions of sound and color to THX, IMAX, digital projection, and 3D. Without people like Scorsese using their power and influence and time and money to champion the things they care about, cinema would have neither past nor future.
Frozen 2 was a mess. It felt like they kept revising the story for so long that they realized they were running out of time and had to just string together all the scenes they had completely animated already somehow.
Character growth? Coherent motivations? Conflict driven by antagonist or antagonistic idea that makes sense?
Who cares, we got some songs to sling and we got some elemental animal plushies to sell.
I dunno, I took my oldest daughter to see Frozen 2 on Sunday. It was a trip watching her watch it. She was definitely getting all the feels now that her sister is 1 now.
I enjoyed the movie too, but seriously, that sister dynamic is strong.
I dunno, I took my oldest daughter to see Frozen 2 on Sunday. It was a trip watching her watch it. She was definitely getting all the feels now that her sister is 1 now.
I enjoyed the movie too, but seriously, that sister dynamic is strong.
Is it, though?
They spend most of the movie apart from each other. Anna gets warned by the troll king to keep an eye on Elsa or whatever but that doesn't happen. Anna is all like "Elsa I'm worried about you, you keep running off into danger by yourself" but Elsa does that and everything works out fine so I guess the lesson is abandon your not-super-powered sibling so you can solve the ancient curse that, actually, the curse doesn't make sense because if the spirits were locked away in the forest than what was causing all the shit in Arendell? But that's beside the point about the conflicts between the sisters that aren't actually conflicts because conflicts have character growth to overcome and resolutions to it and none of that is there. Anna says she is pissed at Elsa for sending her away on that deathtrap ice sled, yet what of it? There is not even a throwaway line saying she is mad at Elsa but so happy she's okay. It's just "ARGH SHE BROKE THE PROMISES WE MADE EACH OTHER :mad: - oh is she dead? - oh no wait she's alive "
It feels like they had intended to have some sort of shift in their relationship during the film, but nothing actually fucking happens.
I am baffled by people who cannot believe that the guy who spent years of his life making a labour of love would want people to experience that labour of love in the best way he knows to get the full effect, and might perhaps venture a mild statement to that effect. Or even a strong one!
I mean sure you can disagree and say actually I will watch Dunkirk on this reflection of a smart watch under neon lighting while playing Candy Crush or whatever thank you very much but the how dare you with which some people seem to react to Scorsese saying this is very odd.
He can say whatever he wants. It still has about the same impact on me as if he had, say, farted in an empty room.
Scorsese's ability to masterfully craft movies has no impact on how I can enjoy them.
And yet, demonstratively, this is not true for like at least half the thread here and seemingly half the internet too. Cause we've had like multiple pages now or people getting their dander up because Scorsese's opinion here is apparently very important and also he insulted them and ran over their dog after he said he'd rather you didn't watch his movie on a phone.
I see it the other way. The response to Scorsese's opinion has been "mmmnope", and we've had multiple pages of people getting their dander up because people are not paying the great and mighty Scorsese the respect he deserves (and ran over his dog).
We watch all of Scorcese's movies on our phones, but we read all of his posts on a movie screen.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I literally cried for about 20 minutes straight in Frozen 2. It hit me in a very specific way. I had to actually hide from my father and sister because I was so shamefully teary-faced. I’m fucking 40 (almost).
The last time any bit of fiction evoked that kind of emotion in me was probably the first time I finished Final Fantasy X.
Any film, animated or otherwise, that can manipulate my emotions to that degree gets a few thumbs up from me.
@DarkPrimus I do agree with some of your Frozen 2 points:
One thing that bothers me is that Elsa‘a justification for sending Anna away is for Anna’s protection. Anna IMMEDIATELY gets put into mortal danger (the giants). It’s not specifically addressed again. I admit that that part of the film is a real mess and I kinda couldn’t believe it.
It’s definitely a believable action on Elsa’s part. Elsa is, frankly, not very good at putting things in the right perspective very often. She’s rather short sighted. This carries over from the first film. And she’s only gotten slightly better.
So I get where you’re coming from, but since Anna is primary lead in my opinion, not Elsa, I don’t care as much about Elsa’s growth as Anna’s, and I think they handled that well enough.
I am baffled by people who cannot believe that the guy who spent years of his life making a labour of love would want people to experience that labour of love in the best way he knows to get the full effect, and might perhaps venture a mild statement to that effect. Or even a strong one!
I mean sure you can disagree and say actually I will watch Dunkirk on this reflection of a smart watch under neon lighting while playing Candy Crush or whatever thank you very much but the how dare you with which some people seem to react to Scorsese saying this is very odd.
He can say whatever he wants. It still has about the same impact on me as if he had, say, farted in an empty room.
Scorsese's ability to masterfully craft movies has no impact on how I can enjoy them.
And yet, demonstratively, this is not true for like at least half the thread here and seemingly half the internet too. Cause we've had like multiple pages now or people getting their dander up because Scorsese's opinion here is apparently very important and also he insulted them and ran over their dog after he said he'd rather you didn't watch his movie on a phone.
I see it the other way. The response to Scorsese's opinion has been "mmmnope", and we've had multiple pages of people getting their dander up because people are not paying the great and mighty Scorsese the respect he deserves (and ran over his dog).
Nah. On this page alone there's the claim that no one is outraged when literally the first reply to the story is someone, with many agrees, telling Scorsese to "fuck off". I think perhaps we can just admit that, yeah, people were actually quite eager to complain about what Scorsese said and go on about it.
Scorsese was already in the crosshairs for his Marvel hot take. This is just another opportunity to take a shot at him. In that spirit...why does his every attempt to expose the seedy side of mobsters and crooks always end up glorifying mobsters and crooks? Is he unable to follow through, or unwilling?
I am baffled by people who cannot believe that the guy who spent years of his life making a labour of love would want people to experience that labour of love in the best way he knows to get the full effect, and might perhaps venture a mild statement to that effect. Or even a strong one!
I mean sure you can disagree and say actually I will watch Dunkirk on this reflection of a smart watch under neon lighting while playing Candy Crush or whatever thank you very much but the how dare you with which some people seem to react to Scorsese saying this is very odd.
He can say whatever he wants. It still has about the same impact on me as if he had, say, farted in an empty room.
Scorsese's ability to masterfully craft movies has no impact on how I can enjoy them.
And yet, demonstratively, this is not true for like at least half the thread here and seemingly half the internet too. Cause we've had like multiple pages now or people getting their dander up because Scorsese's opinion here is apparently very important and also he insulted them and ran over their dog after he said he'd rather you didn't watch his movie on a phone.
I see it the other way. The response to Scorsese's opinion has been "mmmnope", and we've had multiple pages of people getting their dander up because people are not paying the great and mighty Scorsese the respect he deserves (and ran over his dog).
Nah. On this page alone there's the claim that no one is outraged when literally the first reply to the story is someone, with many agrees, telling Scorsese to "fuck off". I think perhaps we can just admit that, yeah, people were actually quite eager to complain about what Scorsese said and go on about it.
I don’t think telling someone to fuck off is necessarily an expression of “outrage” though. I think you can want someone to fuck off without necessarily being outraged. Wanting people to fuck off is pretty run-of-the-mill for me.
Posts
That’s fair and I actually don’t think Scorsese’s comments in that article are bad. This particular case is not a bad one. In general terms. That said, I apply Death of the Author, which I feel rather strongly about, and am not really interested in hearing where I *should* be watching their work. If a creator wants to make a suggestion, I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with trying to exert too much control over the way the viewer chooses to experience something once the creator has released their work into the wild.
Telling people they should only watch in X, Y, Z ways smells similar to when certain authors back at the advent of the (legal) eBook industry refused to allow their works to be published electronically because they felt their books should be experienced with the physical texture that comes from holding paper. I can empathize and even sympathize with this perspective, but philosophically I believe a creator has the first through last word in their text or first through last frame in a film to tell their story, nothing more. It’s up to the viewer to decide how to watch it.
I get there are some technical considerations with film. I take more issue with this kind of thing with written forms. Talking about how an audience should watch a film kind of triggered my opinions about that.
Anyone who has read the actual quote or spent more than 2 minutes thinking about the context understands that he's not actually demanding anything from anyone...
Totally agree. It doesn't bother me in any way. I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about the concept of art ownership but see how I may have come off as bothered by the comment.
I think the proper term is "annoyed."
I have other issues with Martin but this shit is small potatoes.
Say, if you made a 3d movie specifically using 3d things as part of the art then having someone watch it in 2d and say "this movie sucks" would be pretty annoying.
As a musician this subject comes up a ton with everyone using ear buds now-a-days. One can spend a ton of time making an album that sounds rich and full on nice speakers but its tinny and annoying on $6 walmart check out aisle earbuds.
I could never presume to tell some one what to do, but it is annoying when someone listens to a song on earbuds and says the recording sucks.
see also: Valve designing a game specifically for VR and everyone pitching a fit that they can't also play it on a potato.
GLaDOS was particularly upset about that.
I think this is more an issue of artist (or probably whoever is making money off the artist) marketing the piece of art incorrectly or misleadingly.
If you’re a musician and you made an album that sounds like crap on cheap earbuds and then you release that album to Spotify (or some other platform where the majority of users will listen to it using cheap earbuds) then I think it’s perfectly fair criticism for the people listening to it as offered to them by the artist to say it sucks.
Same if a movie looks bad in 2D but it’s still sold in 2D I think criticism that it’s bad in 2D is fair. If it would only be released in 3D and people complain that it’s not available in 2D then THAT complaint would be unreasonable.
Edit: To be fair I don't think Scorsese's comments do this. It's fine to say he think his movie will be more enjoyable in some way. But if, for example, his movie had color issue that made it hard to see on a mobile device I think it would be unfair of him to deflect that criticism as saying it wasn't intended to be consumed that way, when Netflix is offering (and profiting from) if being available in mobile.
Because before that people used to just show up and watch a film... at whatever point it was at when they got there? And they just stuck around for thr start to get back to when they first showed up? Sounds insane to me but so does a lot of things that people used to take for granted.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Look, don't fucking ask me. I get nervous when I am getting into a movie during the trailers
Everything sounds like crap on cheap earbuds.
Thats why they're cheap.
Tangential, but whether or not an album is released on Spotify is not always (or even usually) up to the artists themselves.
Well obviously, but if a person comments that an artist's music sounded bad while they listened to it using what the artist and distributor know will be one of the main ways people consume their art and the artist responds with "my music is only meant to be listened to in good speakers" I don't think the musician would have many defenders.
If a chef makes a meal for someone, and they then leave it one the table for 20 minutes then complain the meal is cold it is not -in my opinion- the fault of the chef.
Which of course doesnt stop the person from leaving a 1 star review on the internet.
Same with music. If a lot of time is spent making the audio sound good, and you chose to listen to audio on crap speakers then.....no that isnt the artists fault.
If you make movies to be displayed on nice screens and people play it on 6 inch phones... (though honestly, phone screens are amazing now but...)
And hell, im not defending his statement. I'm still miffed at his "I havent watched any Marvel movies, but they arent cinema..." nonsense.
But i AM saying that i understand where it comes from. Artists spend a lot of time making something, and often times that thing gets used or viewed in a disposable way that doesnt lend itself to the best experience.
But that never stops the "everyone is a critic" train from rolling through the internet. It can be frustrating at times i am sure.
I think the restaurant advertising and selling "20 minute old" food would be more comparable. Or if the chef knew before hand that a huge amount of the people that eat his food wait 20 minutes before actually eating it. Or like mentioned above if you know your art will be displayed during the day, but you only made it for night viewing. In this case the consumers using earbuds/phones are consuming the art in the way it's been presented and advertised to them as a valid way to consume it.
Prescient
There was an anecdote I heard about a particular band who, back in the '80s-'90s, when they were in the studio making an album, they used to have the producer or engineer run them off a basic cassette tape of the recording so they could hear it back on a crappy little stereo and not just the high-end studio gear. That way they knew how the recording would come across on cheap, basic or crap equipment; they knew that in the real world that's what it would be played on a lot of the time for many reasons. The end results were albums that sounded great on anything.
Seems like running off a streaming-quality MP3 and giving it a listen on cheap earbuds would be the modern equivalent, and perhaps something that should be considered in the studio these days. You don't need to compromise the quality of your product, as proven in the earlier anecdote, but you can take into account your audience's preferences and equipment.
Steam | XBL
If he was sitting in the bushes outside your house yelling at you about your contrast setting on the TV, that would be a little different.
(Conversely, if he was beating you with a pipe wrench because you were watching his movie with frame interpolation turned on, that would be completely justified.)
pleasepaypreacher.net
Steam | XBL
Character growth? Coherent motivations? Conflict driven by antagonist or antagonistic idea that makes sense?
Who cares, we got some songs to sling and we got some elemental animal plushies to sell.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I enjoyed the movie too, but seriously, that sister dynamic is strong.
Is it, though?
It feels like they had intended to have some sort of shift in their relationship during the film, but nothing actually fucking happens.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
We watch all of Scorcese's movies on our phones, but we read all of his posts on a movie screen.
Kubrick don’t know shit about HDR
But seriously someone please come calibrate me
The last time any bit of fiction evoked that kind of emotion in me was probably the first time I finished Final Fantasy X.
Any film, animated or otherwise, that can manipulate my emotions to that degree gets a few thumbs up from me.
It’s definitely a believable action on Elsa’s part. Elsa is, frankly, not very good at putting things in the right perspective very often. She’s rather short sighted. This carries over from the first film. And she’s only gotten slightly better.
So I get where you’re coming from, but since Anna is primary lead in my opinion, not Elsa, I don’t care as much about Elsa’s growth as Anna’s, and I think they handled that well enough.
Scorsese on Film: Kindle Edition: The Audiobook as read by Siri
“I’m sorry, Drez, I don’t quite understand.”
Nah. On this page alone there's the claim that no one is outraged when literally the first reply to the story is someone, with many agrees, telling Scorsese to "fuck off". I think perhaps we can just admit that, yeah, people were actually quite eager to complain about what Scorsese said and go on about it.
I don’t think telling someone to fuck off is necessarily an expression of “outrage” though. I think you can want someone to fuck off without necessarily being outraged. Wanting people to fuck off is pretty run-of-the-mill for me.