|
Lord Krangdar posted:I don't recall anybody saying that in this thread recently. Or ever. It's basically a rephrasing of CineD's hate-on for 'authorial intent'. 'Authorial intent doesn't matter' comes up all the time in here. PeterWeller posted:Yes, but you said it as though it wasn't valid, it wasn't what the film "actually" said. But the film doesn't actually say anything. It's just a (painstakingly crafted) digital record of acting and CGI. It's a signal that has yet to be received. And it says nothing until it is decoded by a conscious being. My point wasn't that the movie in and of itself says one specific thing and interpreting it (otherwise or at all) was wrong, my point is that interpretations themselves aren't 'what this movie actually said', they are what that poster THINKS the movie said. Whereas often people will post and say 'this is what MOVIE X means' and what they should be saying is 'this is what I think MOVIE X means'.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:It doesn't really matter if they make good stuff "on purpose" or not. You judge a work on its own merits, not how it measures up to what the author was trying to say. It kind of does if you are deciding whether or not you should continue following the artist. For example, I think that M. Night Shyamalan has some good ideas and some talent for direction, but he has proven that he can't realize those ideas to my satisfaction, so I'm not going to wast my time watching any more of his films. He might make another Unbreakable, but I'm not going to watch every one of his films on that chance. I can look at the vast rift between what' he's trying to accomplish and what I think he's accomplishing and say "nope, the quality of your work is a crapshoot" Like if M. Night came out and said "I am making a movie about [X]" and X is a topic that I personally am very interested it. I probably won't see the film because even if I agree with what he says in interviews about his views on X, odds are I'm not going to agree with how X ends up being handled in the movie. I can base this on his previous films and what he says they are about. Again, I'm saying that artist intent really only matters for judging artists, not their works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:It's basically a rephrasing of CineD's hate-on for 'authorial intent'. 'Authorial intent doesn't matter' comes up all the time in here. That's already a misunderstanding of the common position here, though, and 'art is never what the artist says it is' is an even further misunderstanding. It's not that authorial intent doesn't matter at all ever. What I see people arguing here quite often is that their attempts at "reading" or interpreting films are not concerned with trying to guess, reverse-engineer, or keep consistent with the intentions (stated or percieved) of the main writers or the directors. And so they shouldn't be judged, or attacked, as if they are. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:My point wasn't that the movie in and of itself says one specific thing and interpreting it (otherwise or at all) was wrong, my point is that interpretations themselves aren't 'what this movie actually said', they are what that poster THINKS the movie said. Whereas often people will post and say 'this is what MOVIE X means' and what they should be saying is 'this is what I think MOVIE X means'. Isn't it implicit that a person saying "________ is this" can be construed as their opinion based on the context of the quote itself, and the fact that we're talking about something as subjective as what a piece of work is intending to say. Also how do you apply authorial intent to something that potentially has different authors - is the screenwriter the author? What if there's seven writers credited? Is it the director? Is it the cinematographer? What if the thing that hangs the entire movie together is an improvised scene from the lead? Is the actor or actress the author now? What if the movie is 80% FX work? Does the project lead at Weta Digital assume authorship? How about the editor, who has what is essentially the final word on the film? Authorial intent works best when there's a very literal singular author - a book or a painting or a photograph. But when you move into the realm of theater, where it becomes a happenstance of a hundred people all working in one direction but each with their own separate thought processes pointing them in that particular way, it becomes more and more useless to apply some sort of intent from one piece of that puzzle and say "this is the author of the film I'm watching".
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:
This is true, but it can still be examined. The film Blade Runner is a good example of this. The director, Ridley Scott has said that he intended the protagonist to be a replicant, while Harrison Ford, who played the protagonist, intended him to be human. These don't necisarrily conflict, because Ridley Scott's vision was that the protagonist would be a replicant who believed he was human, so the fact that the performance was given as though the character was human still works. In fact, if Ridley Scott had said to Harrison Ford "Your character is a replicant who thinks they are human", the performance given may have been different. If you are interested in why a work of art is what it is (rather than just what it is), studying authorial intent can be interesting. Of course it still hangs on things like "did the creator ever state their intent" and even if they did, where they being accurate and truthful? If you don't have things like this, you can try to infer authorial intent, but really you might as well not because it's just speculation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:It's basically a rephrasing of CineD's hate-on for 'authorial intent'. 'Authorial intent doesn't matter' comes up all the time in here. The "I think" part is implicit. You don't need to constantly remind people that your interpretation is subjective when the very foundation of your critical model is the subjectivity of interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:The "I think" part is implicit. You don't need to constantly remind people that your interpretation is subjective when the very foundation of your critical model is the subjectivity of interpretation. Everything about film interpetation is inherently subjective. If one could view a film subjectively somehow it would be only a meaningless series of lights and sound waves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Snak posted:It kind of does if you are deciding whether or not you should continue following the artist. For example, I think that M. Night Shyamalan has some good ideas and some talent for direction, but he has proven that he can't realize those ideas to my satisfaction, so I'm not going to wast my time watching any more of his films. He might make another Unbreakable, but I'm not going to watch every one of his films on that chance. I can look at the vast rift between what' he's trying to accomplish and what I think he's accomplishing and say "nope, the quality of your work is a crapshoot" I have enough time on my hands that I can watch a director's film to judge it for myself instead of deciding if I should follow them or not. I liked Sixth Sense. Discovering that Shyamalan didn't 'mean it' or whatever doesn't matter to me. He made a good film (to me (do I really need to qualify things with this?)) and I will watch his next one regardless. What kind of idiot sees a film, likes it, and then decides they won't try to watch the creator's next film because it turned out to be a fluke? I'd give them another shot just to see! Also Krangdar, I agree with you - if a film could even have an 'objective' interpretation it would defeat the purpose of art.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I have enough time on my hands that I can watch a director's film to judge it for myself instead of deciding if I should follow them or not. I liked Sixth Sense. Discovering that Shyamalan didn't 'mean it' or whatever doesn't matter to me. He made a good film (to me (do I really need to qualify things with this?)) and I will watch his next one regardless. What kind of idiot sees a film, likes it, and then decides they won't try to watch the creator's next film because it turned out to be a fluke? I'd give them another shot just to see! Oh, I mean more like I understand what he was trying to do with Signs, Lady in the Water, and The Happening, but he failed so terribly that no matter how good his ideas are he can't seem to turn them into good films. I don't have close to enough time to watch and read everything so I have to prioritize the films, shows, and books I consume based on whether I think I will like them. Authorial intent plays a role in that process. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Everything about film interpetation is inherently subjective. If one could view a film subjectively somehow it would be only a meaningless series of lights and sound waves. Yes, this is that very foundation I spoke of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Snak posted:Oh, I mean more like I understand what he was trying to do with Signs, Lady in the Water, and The Happening, but he failed so terribly that no matter how good his ideas are he can't seem to turn them into good films. I don't care what Night was 'going for' in those films. I love them anyway. I prioritise based on stuff that I might like also, but I am open to watching something I won't - I'm more interested in expanding my understanding of a topic or my perspectives than I am with being entertained. The films as art thread a few months back explored this topic a lot, I recommend you read it and maybe we should bring this discussion over there instead of having it in the star trek thread, I love that thread so reviving it would be fun and cool!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I prioritise based on stuff that I might like also, but I am open to watching something I won't - I'm more interested in expanding my understanding of a topic or my perspectives than I am with being entertained. The films as art thread a few months back explored this topic a lot, I recommend you read it and maybe we should bring this discussion over there instead of having it in the star trek thread, I love that thread so reviving it would be fun and cool! That thread had potential, but despite these exact same disagreements coming up in so many threads even giving them their own thread couldn't progress them much. Make you own new one instead. I'm adding those movies to my list, just for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
You gotta admit that's an incredibly lovely circle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The idea of society as something fragile and difficult to build or protect is completely at odds with Star Trek's bizarre happy spacefuture where everything is fine except for those Reptilian Jews. The latter is quite clearly an ideological fantasy. The complicated thing about Star Trek is that that's really a TNG/Voyager thing. DS9 and TOS are both extremely predicated on the fragile and difficult concept of society. When you get to the Babelian size the franchise has been at since the early 90s, there's a hell of a lot of contradictions in the way the Federation interacts with itself and its neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I think you need to re-read the last page of this thread, because you pretty much just started back at square one of the exact same argument all over again. I don't think I'm missing anything. It just seems to me as though there's too much emphasis being placed on interpeting these movies as intelligent commentary crafted with the intention to criticize or otherwise comment upon other works of fiction or philosophical ideals. This post is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about : SuperMechagodzilla posted:
Now I would agree that these movies are darker than the 1990s version of Star Trek but the idea that these movies were intentioanlly made darker and more cynical by Abrams as a way to commenting on the fake optimism of the earlier iterations of the franchise seems rather implausible to me. The more likely explanation, and the one that doesn't seem to get much play in this thread, is that 'dark' and edgy movies are a cultural fad right now, thanks in part to our societal obsession with terrorism and with our lovely economy, and in part because other movies that took a dark and edgy tone were massively successful and thus helped to start a trend. I think that rather than fixating on the 'messages' conveyed by the 'author' of a movie (which really doesn't have any single author) it is more fruitful to look at how the movie, as a capitalist enterprise, is constructed out of various cliches and cultural trends. So while some other posters here might look at the underwear scene and ask "what did Abrams intend to tell us about her character with this scene?" I'd be inclined to see it as a fairly straightforward example of a summer blockbuster using T&A to try and make more money. Obviously both types of criticism have their uses but around here it seems like nobody really wants to make the latter kind of analysis. Everyone is going on and on about the 'meaning' of the film, when the meaning if clear: to make as much money as possible by using dumb cliches, special effects and a lot of nostalgia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
That just seems like a quick and easy way to dismiss discussion of a film. "They didn't actually construct this scene with care, they just plugged keywords into a focus group and did what it spat out" is an incredibly intellectually lazy statement. This is especially true because literally every film that's not a guy in his garage is a capitalistic endeavor, so you're just saying "if I feel like it I can dismiss all discussion of a film as meaningless". computer parts fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
If you think that SMG is talking about authorial intent you are wrong. SMG looks at effects, not causes. As we all know, in temporal mechanics, sometimes effect can precede cause...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't think I'm missing anything. What you missed was the whole discussion over the difference between attempting to interpret the films and attempting to guess at Abrams' intentions. Again, you jumped into the middle of that discussion and took it all the way back to square one (since it all started with someone else making essentially the same comments you just made). The answer is that nobody is arguing what you think they are; anyone interpreting the films that way is not trying to reverse-engineer Abrams' intended messages. Snak posted:If you think that SMG is talking about authorial intent you are wrong. SMG looks at effects, not causes. As we all know, in temporal mechanics, sometimes effect can precede cause... Ha, I just watched those episodes the other day. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
I'm not making any point with this post regarding the current topic other than to say that squares and circles are both rigidly defined shapes. They aren't subjective. If you're trying to demonstrate how authorial intent is irrelevant you'll need a more accurate metaphor. Also, I just realized that Scotty sabotaging Marcus's ship was a reference to Scotty sabotaging the Excelsior in whichever movie that was  Subyng fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I'm not making any point with this post regarding the current topic other than to say that squares and circles are both rigidly defined shapes. They aren't subjective. In whose opinion? Yours? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I wouldn't even say these last two movies were "darker" than Trek was in the past really. I would say that they're much faster paced, and that the action is turned up to 11 which is a shift from the previous movies, but they're not darker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Attempted genocide of Vulcan is pretty dark. Also Khan crushed Marcus's head in between his hands while his daughter watched which in my opinion was WAY too dark for Star Trek. I see how they are trying to show just how much of a Bad Guy Khan is but that just left a bad taste in my mouth. Also during the fight scene on Kronos it is implied, though not explicitly shown, that Khan's giant Of course someone's going to reference that episode of TNG where they explode a guy's head with a phaser or when Worf snaps Weyoun's neck. Hbomberguy posted:In whose opinion? Yours? I interpret the words in your post to be in support of my point of view regardless of your intent. 
Subyng fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I interpret the words in your post to be in support of my point of view regardless of your intent. Why yes, I would love a sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I'm not making any point with this post regarding the current topic other than to say that squares and circles are both rigidly defined shapes. They aren't subjective. If you're trying to demonstrate how authorial intent is irrelevant you'll need a more accurate metaphor. Those questions are not rhetorical. I am actually looking for answers. What is the shape? What do I intend the shape to be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Those questions are not rhetorical. I am actually looking for answers. Okay, I'll bite. The shape is a square. You intended to post a picture of a square because it is highly implausible that you accidentally posted a square when what you really wanted was a circle. Your present intent has no bearing on the picture, since you cannot intend something that has already occurred.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Okay, I'll bite. Did you intend for this to be a decent answer to the question? Because it's not. Edit: Because rather than content with the point being made you've dodged it by saying 'well actually you're just making a theoretical example so you don't mean what you say you mean!' Like responding to a Maths teacher asking a question with 'you don't need to know that though, do you? You're just testing me!' Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Those questions are not rhetorical. I am actually looking for answers. If you have told the truth about your intent, we can infer that you are very bad at producing circles, since that shape is, in fact, a square. But that's okay, since you are an artist, I will ask you, "You said that your goal in producing this shape was to produce a circle. Most people seem to think that you did not produce a circle. Could you address the issue?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Did you intend for this to be a decent answer to the question? Because it's not. No, that was a fair answer to a non-rhetorical question. He originally stated that he intended the shape to be a circle, but then he asks me what his intent was. The obvious answer is a circle because he said so. The question didn't even need to be asked because the apparent answer was already given. But it was asked, non-rhetorically, so I gave a non-apparent, non-rhetorical answer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Okay, I'll bite. Incorrect. I intended the circle to be a circle. That it appears to be a square is a (likewise intentional) reference to Michael Craig-Martin's 'An Oak Tree'. The 'square' is modified by my use of contextualizing notes. Additional posts, like this one, provide contexts that further alter the shape. By the end of this post, it will have become a triangle. Of course, there is the distinct possibility that I am lying. That possibility is also, however, a deliberate evocation. The shape is now a triangle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
What does the word SQUARE next to the triangle mean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:What does the word SQUARE next to the triangle mean? Authorial Intent 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
The beauty of the roles being reversed in the Kirk death scene is that Kirk knows for a fact that Spock did that from his mind meld with the guy in the first movie. When he says "this is what you would have done", he's talking matter of fact. The important thing is that Kirk acts knowing Spock would do it, but also that he doesn't have the whole katra thing to bring him back to life. Even though he comes back to life in the end he still makes the same move Spock had in the past knowing full well that this is a one time deal as a human.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:What does the word SQUARE next to the triangle mean? A 2D shape, comprised of four equal sides at right angles to eachother. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Star Trek Into Darkness was a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A 2D shape, comprised of four equal sides at right angles to eachother. Yes, but what does its presence below the triangle indicate? The simple answer would be that regardless of intent you drew a square, and bullshitting with whether people intended to draw what they drew is a waste of time. I agree with that answer. Snak posted:I don't have close to enough time to watch and read everything so I have to prioritize the films, shows, and books I consume based on whether I think I will like them. Authorial intent plays a role in that process. That's all I'm saying. Going back to this point, please give me an example of when you have liked a film, in spite of learning that the author didn't intend to make it that way, and then disliked the rest of their work. Then, if possible, justify how the artist could possibly have made the first film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Going back to this point, please give me an example of when you have liked a film, in spite of learning that the author didn't intend to make it that way, and then disliked the rest of their work. Then, if possible, justify how the artist could possibly have made the first film. I think a good example is Kurt Wimmer. Kurt Wimmer wrote and directed Equalibrium, which is a neatly executed, smartly styled, if a bit shallow, dystoptian action film. The fact that Wimmer both wrote and directed it makes is a good example for this because film is collaborative effort and writers, directors, actors, photographers, costumers, etc. all contribute to the final product. In this instance, two major roles were filled by Wimmer. Wimmer was unhappy aspects of the movie that were results of budgetary and time constraints, as well as the result of collaboration (He didn't like the style chosen by the choreographer). Wimmer made another film, a sort of spiritual sequel to Equalibrium, called Utraviolet. This film was again written and directed by him, and he had much more control over the project and a much larger budget to work with. This resulted in a much worse film. Wimmer asserted that this film reflected his true vision of the action he intended in Equilibrium. I looked at Wimmer's IMDB page and saw that while he has only directed three films, has written screenplays for many more, including Law Abiding Citizen, The Recruit, Salt, and to my horror, a remake of Point Break that is currently filming. Also after typing this I realized that George Lucas is another no-brainer, where he made some good films, and then as he was more able to realize his "true vision" made much worse films. To answer your final question "How could the artist have made a good film in the first place?", in the two examples that I have given, I would say that those films were good in spite of the artists to which they are attributed, rather than because of them. This phenomenon is pretty common when celebrities get big enough that they are able to influence their own projects to a greater degree. Their personal artistic intent becomes more fully realized, which magnifies it's flaws. You see it a lot when actors get big enough to make vanity projects. Some of this might seem like it's not really about authorial intent, but I think it's fair to say that understanding of George Lucas's authorial intent gives insight into the flaws in his more recent films and is good indicator that any future films of his will have similar flaws. Does that answer your question?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Ultraviolet is brilliant in all the same ways Equilibrium is and more so I don't know what you mean by that, but you answer my question very well. I think you hamstring your own point. You've been talking about 'intent' as this abstract thing that sells or un-sells you on following a particular director's work, but then you go ahead and make the point that films can, for worse and often for better, defy that intent. If this is the case, intent shouldn't be something you place so much importance on as part of your decisions on what films to see. Because until you - and this is the point - actually see the film, the intent doesn't fuckin' matter. The way I judge what films to see is find critics who I find myself agreeing with and see what they recommend. Conversely I find critics I disagree with often and use that as a measurement too. Mark Kermode and I haven't seen eye to eye every time but you can tell purely from the runtime of his films on YouTube what films were really worth watching and which ones weren't. A man doesn't rant about transformers 2 for as long as he does without there being something in there that affected him. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
How in the blue hell does this have anything to do with Star Trek? Jesus loving Christ, this is as bad as the 150 pages about fascism in the Pacific Rim thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Timby posted:How in the blue hell does this have anything to do with Star Trek? Jesus loving Christ, this is as bad as the 150 pages about fascism in the Pacific Rim thread. Hey, I suggested we move this to the more relevant thread. I might still start a new one, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 22:47
|
|