Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Emma, we really should form a QI-watchers posse.
-
Pics or it didn't happen.
Non-Newtonian fluid, right?
Precisely.
-
Well that's even more silly. What are you going to watch it on if you're leaving your computer behind?
There's a computer on the capsule.
__If I was to be forced to take only one movie, I'd take one I haven't already seen.__
Good luck, man; they're mostly rubbish.
Wild applause.
-
Not necessarily, but it's worth considering.
Like, is Mark Knopfler a better guitarist than Keith Richards?
I couldn't say, my ears are purely decorative. But we're conflating a few issues, aren't we? Is innovative the same as authentic? And is innovation enough to make a film aesthetically superior to later films that build on that innovation? My problem here is that I can't see how objective, absolute categories can also be historical.
(Toland, incidentally, was a great technical innovator, which complicates things further.)
Put it another way: was Jesse Owens a better runner than the guy who came last in the final of the 2008 Olympics? Most athletics buffs would say "yes". But by the only available objective standard - speed on the hundred metre track - Dervis Patton would leave Jesse Owens for dead.
(This post was brought to you by the Institute for Far-Fetched and Quite Possibly Unhelpful Analogies. Donate to the Institute today!)
-
Mashup.
Exactly. Young Frankenstein it is.
-
And if we've got magic electricity, wouldn't some sort of ham radio make more sense?
The end of the world is nigh, I'm the last guy on the space capsule and I have an old small USB stick with just one Gb on it and I have to choose between two pirated AVI files on my computer - either Citizen Kane or Young Frankenstein. There is no time to compress them so that they will both fit.
Happy?
-
Depends if you value 'professionalism' or 'authenticity'.
Are you saying that Toland's work was more 'authentic' than Dean Semler's (2012) or Jan De Bont's (Die Hard)? And if so, how?
-
You know, I haven't seen Howard the Duck. Odds are I would rate Citizen Kane as a better film, but again that's just me. I think you're proposing objective measurements, no? For instance upthread you said that Toland's cinematography was groundbreaking. And it's probably true, but what does it say about absolute (as opposed to historical) value? The cinematography of films nowadays is fantastic, from a technical standpoint they leave most older films for dead.
-
But children's movie is a subset of movie. The Godfather Part III is a better gangster film than 2001: A Space Odyssey. But no one would say it is a better film. Howard the Duck is a better film about a duck than Citizen Kane.
It's an interesting device you're using here, but I don't really see how it proves that Citizen Kane as a capital em Movie is better than The Little Mermaid or Howard the Duck.
Children's books are a subset of books. Alice in Wonderland is a better children's book than The Da Vinci Code. But it's also arguably a better Book than The Da Vinci Code. I just don't think it's a conclusion that can be reached without, you know, arguing.
(Young Frankenstein is a parody of a horror movie, which is about as subset as it gets. Now I'm sure that Citizen Kane in very many terribly important respects is a better movie than Young Frankenstein, but if I had to bring just one of them on a desert island, I'd reach for Young Frankenstein without batting an eyelid.)
-
I've never consumed a gold meal, let alone swam in one.
However did you know that if you filled an olympic pool with custard you could comfortably walk on it? True story.