f13.net

f13.net General Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Gutboy Barrelhouse on March 30, 2007, 01:13:47 PM



Title: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Gutboy Barrelhouse on March 30, 2007, 01:13:47 PM
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/Air+miles+Travolta+urges+fans+to+%27do+their+bit%27+for+the+environment/article.do

Don't do as I do, do as I say.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Jayce on March 30, 2007, 01:29:30 PM
Interestingly, I read recently that it takes a fairly cheap engine modification to jet engines to make them carbon neutral.  I think the article said that (for commercial airlines) it would result in about a $2 hike in ticket prices.

I guess Travolta's just waiting on the mothership to come by and buy him one, though.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 30, 2007, 02:00:26 PM
One word: Scientology. Seriously, if you follow a religion invented by a scifi author then I have no respect for you and don't take you seirously. This includes Tom Cruise and all the other hollywood freaks that are in to it. Everytime I learn an actor is a scientologist I lose a ton of respect for them.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on March 30, 2007, 02:51:02 PM
One word: Scientology.

[Spanky] And how! [/Spanky]

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/South_Park_Xenu.jpg)


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Bunk on March 30, 2007, 03:05:45 PM
I think this justifies a return to the Terl avatard, and a new sig.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on March 30, 2007, 03:14:35 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/E-meter.jpg/300px-E-meter.jpg)

Hmmm...  My E meter is registering a rock slam.  There is great evil here.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Triforcer on March 30, 2007, 03:18:22 PM
It always amuses me how people who are tolerant of all other religions can openly state "I hate Scientology" and society agrees! (this isn't a criticism, its what I do too).

Scientology- its the Furry of Religions. 


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Nebu on March 30, 2007, 03:19:00 PM
I see the hypocrisy in this, but don't any of you think it's absurd to compare John Travolta to the average Briton?  What's the guy supposed to do? Fly coach everywhere or better yet, walk?  At least the guy is using his popularity to promote a good cause.  No... not the whole Scientology nonsense.  
 


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Gutboy Barrelhouse on March 30, 2007, 03:58:07 PM
From another website:

 It's even more awesome when you find out that John Travolta lends his jets to fellow closeted gay actors who want to have sex without the fear of paparazzi. So, to reiterate, John Travolta wants you to power your house with a bicycle and a car battery, but it's ok for him to melt the polar ice caps so Jake Gyllenhaal can break in his new butt plug. Yeah, that sounds reasonable.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Paelos on March 30, 2007, 04:29:43 PM
It always amuses me how people who are tolerant of all other religions can openly state "I hate Scientology" and society agrees! (this isn't a criticism, its what I do too).

Scientology- its the Furry of Religions. 

It's not a real religion, jackhole. That clear it up for you?


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Trippy on March 30, 2007, 04:51:56 PM
It always amuses me how people who are tolerant of all other religions can openly state "I hate Scientology" and society agrees! (this isn't a criticism, its what I do too).

Scientology- its the Furry of Religions. 
It's not a real religion, jackhole. That clear it up for you?
How is it not a real religion? Heck it even has tax-exempt status now after a decades long battle with the IRS.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: schild on March 30, 2007, 04:53:34 PM
Legally it's a religion.

Technically speaking, it's a religion.

And it does a good job at making fun of other religions by being so insane.

Unfortunately, it's SO INSANE that religious types can't turn that microscope on themselves. They're too busy laughing at the nutjobs hanging with Xenu.

This thread is going places.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on March 30, 2007, 05:00:13 PM
Yeah, "real" religions have talking animals, fiery flora, and resurrecting demigods rather than aliens and spaceships.  Scientology's only shortcoming on the "real" front is its founder lived and was well documented by neutral sources in our communication age as opposed to being shielded by centuries or millenia and subsequent accumulation of apologetics, tradition, and meddlings in politics.  


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Triforcer on March 30, 2007, 05:39:50 PM
Uh Oh.  This thread has turned into Every Other Thread That Mentions Religion.  Can't we just summarize and move on?

"U AND UR INVISIBLE SKY DADDY LOLZ"

"U ARE BEING JUST AS INTOLERANT AS THE RELIGIONS YOU HATE OOOH SNAP"

"RELIGION HAS CAUSED ALL PROBLEMS, ATHIEST HIPPIES CAN BE INTOLERANT BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HURT ANYONE"

"THE SOVIET UNION WAS ATHEIST!!!"

"COMMUNISM WASN'T REALLY THAT BAD, AND CHRISTIANS HAVE DONE MORE DAMAGE"

"YOU PRAISED COMMUNISM OMG"

and so on. 


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Gutboy Barrelhouse on March 30, 2007, 05:48:10 PM
So I guess:

Religion> hypocrisy + gay butt sex


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Selby on March 30, 2007, 05:56:46 PM
Scientology's only shortcoming on the "real" front is its founder lived and was well documented by neutral sources in our communication age as opposed to being shielded by centuries or millenia and subsequent accumulation of apologetics, tradition, and meddlings in politics.  
Give it time.  The Appliantologists are making it more and more acceptable every day!  History gets written by the victors and as long as they continue to convince people that it is a "legitimate" religion, the further and further from reality and more into legend ol' L. Ron will become...


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Roac on March 30, 2007, 06:10:26 PM
It's not a real religion, jackhole.

Why isn't it?


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on March 30, 2007, 06:22:35 PM
Why isn't it?

Not enough Smiting.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: tazelbain on March 30, 2007, 07:03:59 PM
It's the Amway of Religions.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Llava on March 30, 2007, 07:30:18 PM
I hate Scientology.

Most other religions I just dislike.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Paelos on March 30, 2007, 10:45:26 PM
It's not a real religion, jackhole.

Why isn't it?

How about this? Because I say so.

Any other reason would just give yall a reason to mentally masturbate. I'm tired of feeding that fire.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Tebonas on March 30, 2007, 11:17:20 PM
I cry for everybody who believes Scientology is a religion. Scientology is a criminal organisation with tax reliefs in some countries, and thats it. And in the USA they even had to resort to bribes and blackmail to get that status. Give me a break, people!



Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on March 31, 2007, 12:26:53 AM
I'm tired of feeding that fire.

An argument ad Rush why this type of "mental masturbation" isn't a bad thing:

All this time we're burning like bonfires in the dark
A billion other blazes are shooting off their sparks
Every spark a drifting ember of desire
To fall upon the earth and spark another fire

Discussions on religious differences tend to be caustic, I know from being a veteran at Internet Infidels, but they're worth it to find some common ground.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Lantyssa on March 31, 2007, 08:42:38 AM
Back to the original point:
Quote
"I use them as a business tool though, as others do. I think it's part of this industry – otherwise I couldn't be here doing this and I wouldn't be here now."
And here is the problem... he advocates going green as long as it doesn't impact his business.  So all you poor plebians can take lots of effort to make a miniscule difference while I don't have to because it makes me money.

If he was really concerned he could have a satellite feed and espouse how much he helped by using it over flying a plane for just himself.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 31, 2007, 10:21:57 AM
I cry for everybody who believes Scientology is a religion. Scientology is a criminal organisation with tax reliefs in some countries, and thats it. And in the USA they even had to resort to bribes and blackmail to get that status. Give me a break, people!



Indeed. Though I will admit one thing. Scientology fasicnates me because I'd love to move 2000 years into the future and see what scientology morphs into. I know I'm walking dangerous ground here, but L Ron is the Joseph Smith of the 20th century, and it makes me wonder if Jesus and Moses before him weren't the L Ron and Joseph Smith's of their day as well.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: angry.bob on March 31, 2007, 11:05:07 AM
I'm putting the blame firmly where it belongs: All you fucking retards who think Quentin Tarantino is anything other than a shitty no talent plagiarist. The only thing that sucks more shit covered dong than him is the people who thought anything he's crapped into a film can is worth watching. And without Quentin, Travolta would be rotting away in obscurity someway, hopefully being payed $50 to let old queens suck his dick under a bridge while he talks like Barbarino. Tarantino fucking sucks and if you like his shit, you're a fucking retard. Fucking fucking fuck.

Also, any Christian who thinks their fucking delusion is an ounce more valid than Scientology is a stupid fucking tool. They're both made up bullshit, Scientology is just newer. And frankly there's a much bigger chance there are actually aliens somewhere than there being any god whatsoever.

Also2Superfuck Travolta for saying "Maybe it's time to think about domed cities". Holy fucking shit...


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Paelos on March 31, 2007, 11:11:03 AM
Also, any Christian who thinks their fucking delusion is an ounce more valid than Scientology is a stupid fucking tool. They're both made up bullshit, Scientology is just newer. And frankly there's a much bigger chance there are actually aliens somewhere than there being any god whatsoever.

One would hope you'd actually consider some of the tripe you spout before dolling out titles like "stupid fucking tool." But then again we're all just delusional.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Oban on March 31, 2007, 11:30:53 AM
... I know I'm walking dangerous ground here, but L Ron is the Joseph Smith of the 20th century, and it makes me wonder if Jesus and Moses before him weren't the L Ron and Joseph Smith's of their day as well.

Careful, that sort of thinking leads only to madness.

On that note... one of these does not belong:

(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/11089.jpg)

(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/lfjesus.jpg)

(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/10975.jpg)




Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: angry.bob on March 31, 2007, 11:39:24 AM
One would hope you'd actually consider some of the tripe you spout before dolling out titles like "stupid fucking tool." But then again we're all just delusional.

It's been carefully considered by me for the last 40 years. Each and every christian I've ever met who's "believed" beyond just using their "faith" as a convenient tool for business or political networking has been just above functionally retarded. THey also always seem to have a personal life that was such a fucking train wreck that the only thing keeping them from killing themselves was absolute and unshakeable knwoledge that their god was real, omnipotent, and hates the icky fags. And usually the yabbering smelly brown foreigners. Of course it never occurs to them that if their imaginary god existed in any way he'd give them even a single tool or clue to make their lives just an ounce better. But it's always much easier to "fix" the lives of people who just want you to go the fuck away using your mighty jesus voodoo than it is to address your husband/wife banging prostitutes/the neighborhood stay-at-home dad, your son huffing paint because you sent him to gay-be-gone camp and it didn't "fix" him, and your early teen daughter getting drunk at parties and sucking a dozen cocks because she doesn't consider it sex since your sex talk consisted of you pretending that sex doesn't exists. And by "you" I mean the generic you.

I pray for the day we develop explosive brain implants that force everyone on the planet to behave in exact accordance with the fucking ridiculous "religions" they pretend to believe in.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Jayce on March 31, 2007, 12:13:11 PM
It's been carefully considered by me for the last 40 years. Each and every christian I've ever met who's "believed" beyond just using their "faith" as a convenient tool for business or political networking has been just above functionally retarded.

Well, I'm in that class of people, and while I may be functionally retarded (the jury's clearly still out on that one), I don't have any of the above problems you mention. In fact I'm extremely happily married.  I guess it's too early to tell if any of my kids will get into one of the below named pursuits, as they're 2 and 1 still.

Anyway, I came here to respond to
Quote
Also, any Christian who thinks their fucking delusion is an ounce more valid than Scientology is a stupid fucking tool.
by saying that I can agree to that.  There is no way to objectively figure out whether the mothership or a loving God is true, or even more likely than the other*.  Would be interesting to discuss, though.

Politics, here this thread comes   8-)



*edit: Obiously, at least in the absence (thus far) of said mothership or the Second Coming.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on March 31, 2007, 12:52:05 PM
The Mothership is true!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/ParliamentMothershipConnection.jpg)

Swing down, Sweet Chariot
Stop and let me ride


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: HaemishM on March 31, 2007, 03:06:04 PM
You know my thoughts on religion. I think Scientology is a perfect religion, because it illustrates just how easily led human beings are when you put faith into the equation.

But the real reasons I can't respect Travolta have nothing to do with hypocrisy. I can name 3, in order of appearance:

Look Who's Talking 1/2/3
Battlefield Earth
Wild Hogs

Fuck, who keeps giving him movies after BE? That movie gives 8 out of 10 lab monkeys colorectal cancer.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Jayce on March 31, 2007, 03:58:17 PM
You know my thoughts on religion. I think Scientology is a perfect religion, because it illustrates just how easily led human beings are when you put faith into the equation.

You coulda stopped there and it would be just as true.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: HaemishM on March 31, 2007, 05:35:37 PM
True enough. Religion is just so much more effective at getting humans following blindly than anything else other than free sex.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on March 31, 2007, 05:46:29 PM
Which goes a long way in explaing why religion villainizes free sex.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Paelos on March 31, 2007, 10:41:44 PM
Which goes a long way in explaing why religion villainizes free sex.

Depends on which religion.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Strazos on March 31, 2007, 11:06:16 PM
Sorry if I've liked enough Tarantino movies. It's not so much that I like Tarantino, it's more like there are some movies that I like, and he happened to direct them.

Then again, it seems more people around here are pretty jaded when it comes to film. Most of you seem to go to the movies (or rent, or whatever) more than I have in the last couple of years.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Velorath on April 01, 2007, 01:45:18 AM
Sorry if I've liked enough Tarantino movies. It's not so much that I like Tarantino, it's more like there are some movies that I like, and he happened to direct them.

Then again, it seems more people around here are pretty jaded when it comes to film. Most of you seem to go to the movies (or rent, or whatever) more than I have in the last couple of years.

I see a lot of movies these days (as it's my job), but I like Tarantino's stuff and I won't even jokingly apologize for it just because some cunt here thinks his opinion will be worth more than two squirts of piss to people just so long as he can make it sound like only retards would possibly disagree with him.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Samwise on April 01, 2007, 10:54:36 AM
Then again, it seems more people around here are pretty jaded when it comes to film. Most of you seem to go to the movies (or rent, or whatever) more than I have in the last couple of years.

I go to a lot of movies because I like movies, and I don't dislike movies because I go to a lot of movies.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Selby on April 01, 2007, 02:31:54 PM
but I like Tarantino's stuff and I won't even jokingly apologize for it just because some cunt here thinks his opinion will be worth more than two squirts of piss to people just so long as he can make it sound like only retards would possibly disagree with him.
If a movie is good, it's good.  Who cares who directed it or starred in it.  If Uwe Boll put out a good movie (sure), I would enjoy it just because it was a good movie, I wouldn't pretend to hate it just because it happened to have some idiot director.  Of course everyone's definition of "good" is more than a little subjective...


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 01, 2007, 02:38:07 PM
That's silly. You can't seperate the art from the artist.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Paelos on April 01, 2007, 03:06:27 PM
That's silly. You can't seperate the art from the artist.

Agreed, and where Tarantino is concerned his movies have either really been great in my eyes, or they have been unwatchable shit that I tuned out of in the first hour. I don't have a lot of middle ground with his stuff.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Johny Cee on April 01, 2007, 07:38:19 PM
Sorry if I've liked enough Tarantino movies. It's not so much that I like Tarantino, it's more like there are some movies that I like, and he happened to direct them.

Then again, it seems more people around here are pretty jaded when it comes to film. Most of you seem to go to the movies (or rent, or whatever) more than I have in the last couple of years.

This is a "time of life" thing.  You hit the mid-20's and all of sudden you're much less motivated to do anything.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: schild on April 01, 2007, 07:41:25 PM
This is a "time of life" thing. You hit the mid-20's and all of sudden you're much less motivated to do anything.

Truth.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Paelos on April 01, 2007, 09:26:06 PM
This is a "time of life" thing. You hit the mid-20's and all of sudden you're much less motivated to do anything.

Truth.

Yeah I'm sitting in that hellhole right now.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Samwise on April 02, 2007, 12:13:00 AM
This is a "time of life" thing.  You hit the mid-20's and all of sudden you're much less motivated to do anything.

Does that mean it's temporary?  Thank God.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Gutboy Barrelhouse on April 02, 2007, 12:15:37 AM
But when you hit 45 you get motivated all over again  :evil:


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 02, 2007, 01:01:03 AM
That's silly. You can't seperate the art from the artist.


I don't know if that should have been in green, as well as the monkey agreeing with you, but it's bollocks.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Sky on April 02, 2007, 08:36:56 AM
Scientology fasicnates me because I'd love to move 2000 years into the future and see what scientology morphs into. I know I'm walking dangerous ground here, but L Ron is the Joseph Smith of the 20th century, and it makes me wonder if Jesus and Moses before him weren't the L Ron and Joseph Smith's of their day as well.
This is precisely my viewpoint on the matter.

Except L Ron actually wrote his book.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on April 02, 2007, 08:55:29 AM
Indeed.  While I dig Jesus from a hippie point of view, he didn't write his own book.  Supposedly, his followers scribed a few scrolls (which we only have copies of copies of copies), padded it out with huge chunks of Judaism, and then told the Jews they were the ones who were confused about their own frikkin' Messiah.

Pure balls.

Back to the OP and another reason why we can't take John Travolta seriously:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/Urban_Cowboy.jpg/200px-Urban_Cowboy.jpg)
Hard hat days and honky-tonk nights.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Jayce on April 02, 2007, 11:08:52 AM
Hard hat days and honky-tonk nights.

"I live la vida luna.  The crazy life".

Then later, Ricky Martin taught us real Spanish.



Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 02, 2007, 11:26:08 AM
That's silly. You can't seperate the art from the artist.


I don't know if that should have been in green, as well as the monkey agreeing with you, but it's bollocks.


No it wasn't meant to be in green. The monkey probably agrees with me because he's involved in creative pursuits himself.

I don't know anyone, including myself, who doesn't inject their personality and life experiences in their creations, or anybody who intentionally avoids removing their identity and personal style from what they create. Even when they're paying homage to something and just drawing Mickey Mouse, or mimicing Kerouac, or copping Hendrix, they still put a piece of themselves in it. The person is the art and vice versa. What's going on in their life affects it. What they personally like affects it. Who are they are affects it. And once you're acquainted with one or two works, you can gauge who they are and what they're style is in order to know what to expect in future projects (more or less -- though a good artist will keep surprising you in how he or she applies that personal style).

In this case, we're talking about filmmakers. One who is more or less an auteur at that. And one who is on the extreme side of things, at near evangelistic levels, in making films that are pretty much about himself and his own tastes.

[EDIT] Someone school me on the proper use of the word "affect".  :-P


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Triforcer on April 02, 2007, 11:29:03 AM
Oh, come on.  This is just like those unbelievably faggy debates about not playing good games because of the company that makes them.  If a movie/game is good, I'll watch/play it.  This isn't about politics/religion/whatever where there are actually good moral reasons to boycott the creator of something because you disagree with them.  Its about gaming.  If Uwe Boll himself makes a good movie (somehow) I'll watch it. 


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 02, 2007, 11:46:47 AM
Oh, come on.  This is just like those unbelievably faggy debates about not playing good games because of the company that makes them.  If a movie/game is good, I'll watch/play it.  This isn't about politics/religion/whatever where there are actually good moral reasons to boycott the creator of something because you disagree with them.  Its about gaming.  If Uwe Boll himself makes a good movie (somehow) I'll watch it. 

Lol. Being able to discern who has talent and good ideas, or who's style you gravitate towards is "unbelievably faggy"? And yet, you're OK with dissing art and entertainment for sake of "moral reasons".

Pardon me if I don't bother debating with you.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Triforcer on April 02, 2007, 12:01:33 PM
Oh, come on.  This is just like those unbelievably faggy debates about not playing good games because of the company that makes them.  If a movie/game is good, I'll watch/play it.  This isn't about politics/religion/whatever where there are actually good moral reasons to boycott the creator of something because you disagree with them.  Its about gaming.  If Uwe Boll himself makes a good movie (somehow) I'll watch it. 

Lol. Being able to discern who has talent and good ideas, or who's style you gravitate towards is "unbelievably faggy"? And yet, you're OK with dissing art and entertainment for sake of "moral reasons".

Pardon me if I don't bother debating with you.

Pardon me if I don't debate with you, because you just changed your argument in the last post.  I have nothing against using the creator of a movie as a pre-viewing INDICATOR of whether you should see it, in the absence of any other information- in that case, you are still trying to determine if a movie is good.  Previously, you and others were arguing that even if a movie is normatively and indisputably GOOD (and you learn this through other sources of information), you wouldn't see it because of the creator.

The two arguments are analytically distinct.  Which do you really mean, 1 or 2?   


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Jayce on April 02, 2007, 12:02:46 PM
Oh, come on.  This is just like those unbelievably faggy debates about not playing good games because of the company that makes them.  If a movie/game is good, I'll watch/play it.  This isn't about politics/religion/whatever where there are actually good moral reasons to boycott the creator of something because you disagree with them.  Its about gaming.  If Uwe Boll himself makes a good movie (somehow) I'll watch it. 

Lol. Being able to discern who has talent and good ideas, or who's style you gravitate towards is "unbelievably faggy"? And yet, you're OK with dissing art and entertainment for sake of "moral reasons".

Pardon me if I don't bother debating with you.

Even leaving aside the sideways slam to the gay members of our little community by your incredibly insightful use of the word faggy, this debate is stupid.

There's boycotting a director/writer/painter because you don't think you'd like him if you had a conversation over coffee.

There's boycotting same because they give money to [cause you are morally opposed to].

Those two things aren't the same.  One is more serious than the other.  Which one is more serious is an exercise for the reader.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 02, 2007, 12:07:12 PM
And still, he's calling it "unbelievably faggy" merely if someone said:

"Hey, I liked all of Tim Schafer's games. I think I'll buy this new one."

Or, "There's like 2 Vonnegut books I haven't liked for the past twenty years I've been reading him. I'll give this one a shot."


As opposed to,

"Anna Karenina lost her virginity before marriage. Good riddance to Tolstoy, I say!"


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Triforcer on April 02, 2007, 12:09:34 PM
And still, he's calling it "unbelievably faggy" merely if someone said:

"Hey, I liked all of Tim Schafer's games. I think I'll buy this new one."

Or, "There's like 2 Vonnegut books I haven't liked for the past twenty years I've been reading him. I'll give this one a shot."


As opposed to,

"Anna Karenina lost her virginity before marriage. Good riddance to Tolstoy, I say!"

Completely not what I said, or meant.  I'm through debating with you as well, because you apparently are incapable of understanding the ex ante/ex poste distinction I made above. 


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 02, 2007, 12:20:54 PM
I understand what you said, and understand that you're the biggest idiot around here as well. One which, even if you grew up for awhile, would still be more stupid than Broughden. Seriously, you take the cake. You're one part Alex Keaton, one part Ishmael Boorg. And just another kid to boot.

And even if I did misunderstand, I still wouldn't care. Because I don't like you, and I'm quite happy never giving you an ounce of respect just by default.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Morat20 on April 02, 2007, 12:44:50 PM
Indeed.  While I dig Jesus from a hippie point of view, he didn't write his own book.  Supposedly, his followers scribed a few scrolls (which we only have copies of copies of copies), padded it out with huge chunks of Judaism, and then told the Jews they were the ones who were confused about their own frikkin' Messiah.

Pure balls.

Back to the OP and another reason why we can't take John Travolta seriously:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/Urban_Cowboy.jpg/200px-Urban_Cowboy.jpg)
Hard hat days and honky-tonk nights.
You could see the house I grew up in in one of the opening shots of Urban Cowboy. I used to drive by Gilley's all the time -- well, by the burned down wreck that used to be Gilley's.

One thing I don't believe the movie mentions is the horrible stench that often lingers over Pasadena. See, we have a large paper mill in the area -- according to an engineer I know (whole career in enviromental compliance) it's the best-smelling and cleanest paper-mill in the country. However, that's like saying the rotting carcass of a dead bull elephant in your backyard is the best-smelling rotting bull elephant in the world. It's really not a help.

Prevailing winds tend to blow the stench of that damn mill all over the place. Add in the miles and miles of refineries right across 225, and there is -- shall we say -- a distinct odor. There's upsides and downsides. The upside is that since schools are funded by property taxes, the schools in the area tend to be a LOT better than is the case (Deer Park, for instance, is one of the better school districts in the state). The downside -- we live next to the biggest domestic manufacturer of cyanide. Also, I have it on good authority that (at least during the 80s) the general view at the refineries towards air pollutants was "It's fucking cheaper to pay the EPA fines than dispose of it properly".

Also, John Travolta once filmed a movie here and seriously depressed property values.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Yegolev on April 02, 2007, 12:54:38 PM
I don't know anyone, including myself, who doesn't inject their personality and life experiences in their creations,

I prefer to eject my personality onto my creations, but it is probably the same thing.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Lantyssa on April 02, 2007, 01:26:01 PM
Woooo!  Pasa-Git-Down-Dena!

Chemical alley.  Lovely place.  My dad was sent to one of the plants there to improve their processes.  Being told about the phosgene and isocyanates they used to produce polymers was an enlightening experience as to the realities of industrial chemistry.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Morat20 on April 02, 2007, 01:29:33 PM
Woooo!  Pasa-Git-Down-Dena!

Chemical alley.  Lovely place.  My dad was sent to one of the plants there to improve their processes.  Being told about the phosgene and isocyanates they used to produce polymers was an enlightening experience as to the realities of industrial chemistry.
Also happened to be on the A-list for nuclear targets during the Cold War. Sure, you wanted to nuke military bases and such -- but a single nuke could strip the US of a fair-sized port AND one of it's biggest refining centers.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on April 02, 2007, 05:27:08 PM
If nuclear destruction had been included in Urban Cowby's plotline, it would've been a worthwhile movie.  Travolta kicking commie ass in a post-apocalyptic world makes for a helluva 'merican icon.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Selby on April 02, 2007, 06:57:25 PM
One thing I don't believe the movie mentions is the horrible stench that often lingers over Pasadena.
You truly do have to actually smell it to believe how bad it can be.  I thought crude oil being refined out in Abilene or drilled for in Odessa stunk something fierce, but Pasadena has a stench all its own...

The upside is that since schools are funded by property taxes, the schools in the area tend to be a LOT better than is the case (Deer Park, for instance, is one of the better school districts in the state).
I don't know... the Pasadena school system isn't the most stellar according to my sister-in-law and all of the other half's family who are firmly entrenched in the area.  The Friendswood\Pearland districts are considerably "safer" schools to go to.  Sure, it isn't inner city Houston or anything like that, but it definitely isn't the top school district of choice.

And my father-in-law used to tell us all kinds of stories about Gilley's.  I never knew if he was telling the truth with some of them though...


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Lantyssa on April 02, 2007, 07:45:10 PM
Clear Lake was "the" school in that area.  At least it was supposed to be.  I personally found it pretty bad, just attended by kids from better off families.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Selby on April 02, 2007, 09:10:08 PM
Pretty much what she told me too.  Just because astronauts and engineers at NASA have kids and expensive schools doesn't mean the kids are any more responsible or turn out any less messed up than the ones from bad school districts.  They just get into good colleges and drop out after wasting daddy's money for 1-2 years.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 03, 2007, 01:53:15 AM
I understand what you said, and understand that you're the biggest idiot around here as well. One which, even if you grew up for awhile, would still be more stupid than Broughden. Seriously, you take the cake. You're one part Alex Keaton, one part Ishmael Boorg. And just another kid to boot.

And even if I did misunderstand, I still wouldn't care. Because I don't like you, and I'm quite happy never giving you an ounce of respect just by default.


Hey, I still disagree totally with what you said about Art, but I can get behind your Triforcer Stance.


(And it was a totally throwaway comment anyway, I don't wanna get into a debate about the Authorial Phallacy anyways, since I spent too much time studying it during my own creative pursuits.  It was an interesting Debate tactic tho.  I look forward to our lightsabre fight where you claim TO HAVE THE HIGH GROUND.)

God, I watched that movie again yesterday.   Still shit.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: HaemishM on April 03, 2007, 08:28:34 AM
(And it was a totally throwaway comment anyway, I don't wanna get into a debate about the Authorial Phallacy anyways, since I spent too much time studying it during my own creative pursuits.  It was an interesting Debate tactic tho.  I look forward to our lightsabre fight where you claim TO HAVE THE HIGH GROUND.)

God, I watched that movie again yesterday.   Still shit.


For fuck's sake, why?


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 03, 2007, 09:11:52 AM
*steps into the middle of the thread, tumbleweed blowing by dramatically, six-shooters of fanboyism strapped to each hip*

Let's do this. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=197859)


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: HaemishM on April 03, 2007, 09:23:40 AM
BUT LOVE ISN'T SAND!






Your turn.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 03, 2007, 09:32:09 AM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Nice Shooting Tex.

Let's not.

As to H ;  You will quite literally watch anything when you have a sleeping 7month old that wakes every time you twitch and you've left the channel on Sky Movies and suddenly the good movie you WERE watching finishes and the credits for a heap of shit appears.  It's at that point you realise you left the TV controller on the Dining table and you can't move and the wife appears to have fucked right off to enjoy the peace and quiet and you're left listening to some wee whiny twat screaming that eventually he WILL BE ALL POWERFUL AND HE'LL SHOW ALL OF THEM.

Babies are Hell.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Lantyssa on April 03, 2007, 09:55:10 AM
If you had to listen to whining, it might as well be your baby's over his.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Jayce on April 03, 2007, 10:35:33 AM
If you had to listen to whining, it might as well be your baby's over his.

That's a perfectly good point.  I can't speak for Ironwood, but my kids crying is painful to hear even if I know they're ok.  It's nothing compared to the pain of that movie's dialog though.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Morat20 on April 03, 2007, 10:50:27 AM
One thing I don't believe the movie mentions is the horrible stench that often lingers over Pasadena.
You truly do have to actually smell it to believe how bad it can be.  I thought crude oil being refined out in Abilene or drilled for in Odessa stunk something fierce, but Pasadena has a stench all its own...

The upside is that since schools are funded by property taxes, the schools in the area tend to be a LOT better than is the case (Deer Park, for instance, is one of the better school districts in the state).
I don't know... the Pasadena school system isn't the most stellar according to my sister-in-law and all of the other half's family who are firmly entrenched in the area.  The Friendswood\Pearland districts are considerably "safer" schools to go to.  Sure, it isn't inner city Houston or anything like that, but it definitely isn't the top school district of choice.

And my father-in-law used to tell us all kinds of stories about Gilley's.  I never knew if he was telling the truth with some of them though...
I was thinking Deer Park -- Pasadena and Baytown don't hit the "sweet spot" for refinery tax money. Deer Park does -- and it's student body is a mix of the kids of engineers and blue-collar laborers.

Semi-decent sports program  -- Andy Petitt played for Deer Park. Lives there too -- a few miles from my parent's place. Too bad he chokes half the fucking time. The music program (except for voice, which I understand is outstanding) has fallen off a bit, but it's got a very good fine arts program overall. Academically, they're near the top of the state -- near Plano, etc.

Now, Pasadena's schools aren't anything to write home about (although I know a few people that work there). They are, however, considerably better than other schools with the same demographics (fairly low-income area, etc) because they have a great deal more money than a similiar district on the other side of town. I'd avoid La Porte ISD, though. *shudder*.

Clear Lake, Brook and Friendswood benefit in much the same way from NASA (lots of kids of rocket scientists out there), and there's some solid schools on the north side of town (Woodlands area) -- but fucking education in Texas is goddamn hit or miss. I prefer Clear Lake to Deer Park if I was picking a place to live, but for school's -- it'd be a toss-up.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 03, 2007, 04:12:23 PM
BUT LOVE ISN'T SAND!

Your turn.

Okay.

Ahem...

"THEY MADE PILES OF MONEY (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) AND CRITICS ACTUALLY LIKED THEM BETTER (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=197859) THAN THE ORIGINALS!  SO GO CRY INTO YOUR BEER, INTERNET, AND KEEP BACKING SHIT LIKE SNAKES ON A PLANE!"

Now you go again.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 03, 2007, 05:30:16 PM
I understand what you said, and understand that you're the biggest idiot around here as well. One which, even if you grew up for awhile, would still be more stupid than Broughden. Seriously, you take the cake. You're one part Alex Keaton, one part Ishmael Boorg. And just another kid to boot.

And even if I did misunderstand, I still wouldn't care. Because I don't like you, and I'm quite happy never giving you an ounce of respect just by default.


Hey, I still disagree totally with what you said about Art, but I can get behind your Triforcer Stance.


(And it was a totally throwaway comment anyway, I don't wanna get into a debate about the Authorial Phallacy anyways, since I spent too much time studying it during my own creative pursuits.  It was an interesting Debate tactic tho.  I look forward to our lightsabre fight where you claim TO HAVE THE HIGH GROUND.)

God, I watched that movie again yesterday.   Still shit.


But there isn't a debate here. Not until you tell me give me some reasons why you said what you did at least.

All I was speaking about was personal style. Style, and how people can identify or have a liking for someone's work (or a disliking, for that matter). And why and how they can get a general idea about future creations by certain individuals when taking said individual's previous work into account. Style is hardly a farfetched idea that even needs to be debated. It exists. Artists are embodied in their work, and represent the artist at whatever period in life they were created.

In the case of movies, it might get a little trickier, since there's hundreds of people working on the average film - and all contribute and put their souls into it in some way. But even then, someone's calling the shots -- someone has the "vision", and is dictating things to the others. Most of the time, that person is the director. In the end, the final product falls on his or her head.

But anyways, skipping the elementary shit, I just need to ask: Is it so wrong for someone to say, "I like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick. I'm looking forward to/avoiding this film"? Because that's all this amounts to. I don't care to look over the exact conversation that started this, but believe someone said they "liked Tarantino's movies". Some other guy came in and acted like it was weird to not take every movie on it's own terms, and ignore the people behind it.

If you believe that, then I never want to hear you praise or denigrate, or even talk about a director ever again.

[EDIT]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're mistaking me for saying you have to like an artist personally if you like his or her work. Or something like that. But that isn't what I meant. I just said you couldn't seperate them. As far as that goes, the two are one and the same.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Samwise on April 03, 2007, 05:37:06 PM
Is it so wrong for someone to say, "I like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick. I'm looking forward to/avoiding this film"?

No.

Is it wrong for someone to say "I normally like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick, but this particular film turned out to be completely different and I disliked/liked it anyway"?  This whole tangent started when Selby said that if Uwe Boll made a good movie, he (Selby) would watch it even though Uwe Boll has made lots of bad movies in the past.  You said he was silly because it's impossible to separate the art from the artist.  I think if you retract that accusation we can move on.   :-)


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Paelos on April 03, 2007, 05:46:40 PM
I would say that looking back on the original argument that once again the only problem is the use of the word "impossible" where "unlikely" would do.

Artists don't usually change their spots very often. Typically if you hate a good bit of an artists work, you aren't going to enjoy the next piece they do. It's very hard, but not impossible to seperate the two, and it's very rare that an established artist has a paradigm shift to greatness in their work. Note that I said established, not learning, advancing, and brainstorming.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 03, 2007, 05:58:32 PM
Is it so wrong for someone to say, "I like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick. I'm looking forward to/avoiding this film"?

No.

Is it wrong for someone to say "I normally like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick, but this particular film turned out to be completely different and I disliked/liked it anyway"?  This whole tangent started when Selby said that if Uwe Boll made a good movie, he (Selby) would watch it even though Uwe Boll has made lots of bad movies in the past.  You said he was silly because it's impossible to separate the art from the artist.  I think if you retract that accusation we can move on.   :-)

I don't think I'm going to retract anything.


If you're open to liking "something anyways" despite the past, then all that tells me is that you really do like that particular director's schtick, but finally found something where you thought it was applied well.

Or in other words, some people might actually like Uwe Boll's general take on things, but recognize he hasn't executed well -- He might get lucky one day and make a "good Uwe Boll" film -- and some people might like it. Simply because they never really hated him anyways. They wanted to like where he was going before.

I, for one, would hate even a good Uwe Boll film. Because it's Uwe Boll that I hate. Not just his lack of execution. He sucks all around.


Boll is a horrible example though. We should stop mentioning him. There are other things people are more likely to do a 180 on (I've done it plenty myself -- George Clooney is the first thing that comes to mind).


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: NowhereMan on April 03, 2007, 06:26:51 PM
I, for one, would hate even a good Uwe Boll film. Because it's Uwe Boll that I hate. Not just his lack of execution. He sucks all around.

See that's the whole point about separating the artist from his art. What was being said was that it's possible (thought highly unlikely) that Uwe Boll might make an actually good film. Yeah it might be the case that he actually executes his style well finally (is that right? I always thought his style was 'incredibly shitty, dear god I want to stab my eyes out with cotton buds') but the point was that if the movie was actually a good movie it would be watchable. Or rather while there are movies that are really made as a reflection of the director's tastes (Tarantino being a case in point) it is possible for a director to make a film that is of quality without it being wholly a mater of their style. Not every film a director makes has to be in the exact same style and to state that you could never like a film because it was directed by X, Y or Z is to more or less state just that.

There are certainly cases where a director heavily influences movies but imagine someone who said that they hated Spielberg's style after watching the Indiana Jone's Trilogy and declared that, even without watching it, that they would hate Schindler's List. Directors aren't magically stuck in a single style or genre and while stating that you take films directors have made as indicators of what films you're interested in makes perfect sense, it seems bizarre to say that you'd never like one of their films.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2007, 01:20:06 AM

I don't think I'm going to retract anything.


You said that 'You Can't Seperate The Art From The Artist.'

I said 'That's Bollocks'.

I think you really do need to retract that.  You're saying that any art washed up on a beach in the middle of nowhere cannot be expressed due to the artist being unknown.

I say Bollocks.

Tracey Fucking Emin is what you get if you follow your logic.  Fucking Mona Lisa is what I get when I follow mine.

I don't NEED to know fuck all about Leonardo to appreciate the Mona Lisa.  I don't even need to know his fucking name.  I certainly don't take anything away from the painting because he was totally fucking batshit insane.  Authorial Phallacy.  I said I wouldn't do this and here I am debating.


I mean for fucks sake, Art is meant to outlast the artist.  That's the fucking point.



Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Tebonas on April 04, 2007, 01:25:32 AM
One of the most hated sentences from the mouth of my German teacher in school:

"You have to take his whole writing into account to understand that book" (about what the author really means when he uses the word blue, because he doesn't mean the color, as evident in other books).

Fuck that. Book can't stand on its own, book failed. End of story.

Of course then it is also true that a book (picture,movie) that can stand on its own does so regardless of who made it.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2007, 01:30:15 AM
The only Professor to ever pull that shit on me was the guy that said the same thing about Hardy.

I found out later he had published five books on the works of Hardy.  He had to think that way; it generated revenue for him.


I'm not saying that you cannot glean insight through an understanding of the artist.  I'm just saying that it's not the important bit.  Thinking that way leads to our current cult of celebrity.  It leads to Tarantino.  And it shackles the artist themselves.  Did Raimi, for example, WANT to put the Doc Ock Operating Table funny in ?  Or was he forced to because it was entirely expected of him ?


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2007, 01:41:34 AM
BUT LOVE ISN'T SAND!

Your turn.

Okay.

Ahem...

"THEY MADE PILES OF MONEY (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) AND CRITICS ACTUALLY LIKED THEM BETTER (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=197859) THAN THE ORIGINALS!  SO GO CRY INTO YOUR BEER, INTERNET, AND KEEP BACKING SHIT LIKE SNAKES ON A PLANE!"

Now you go again.

Whoops (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm)


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Tebonas on April 04, 2007, 01:44:48 AM
The deeper understanding you glean from the combined works is added value that should not be underestimated. But each piece should work on its own as well.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2007, 01:47:24 AM
But even that DOES NOT NEED to reference the author nor the artist.

 :lol:

I could do this all day.  It beats work.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Tebonas on April 04, 2007, 02:10:29 AM
Understanding the author or artist gives added value to understanding his works, but it doesn't add enough to satisfy the intellectual wanking-off needed to do it in most cases.

Oh yeah, beats the hell out of work!  :lol:


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 04, 2007, 06:28:45 AM
"THEY MADE PILES OF MONEY (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) AND CRITICS ACTUALLY LIKED THEM BETTER (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=197859) THAN THE ORIGINALS!  SO GO CRY INTO YOUR BEER, INTERNET, AND KEEP BACKING SHIT LIKE SNAKES ON A PLANE!"


Whoops (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm)

You know, the funny thing is I truly enjoyed the hell out of Serenity and would love to see Firefly revived but I'm surprised it placed so high on that list. It made like $5 at the theater.

Hey, Joss Whedon made it, this could lead right into the main derail again. (I happen to like everything he's done on TV and most of his movies. I'll give him a pass on some of the script's he helped with. I mean, he wrote Alien Ressurection but he also wrote Toy Story, right?)


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: HaemishM on April 04, 2007, 08:46:23 AM
BUT LOVE ISN'T SAND!

Your turn.

Okay.

Ahem...

"THEY MADE PILES OF MONEY (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) AND CRITICS ACTUALLY LIKED THEM BETTER (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=197859) THAN THE ORIGINALS!  SO GO CRY INTO YOUR BEER, INTERNET, AND KEEP BACKING SHIT LIKE SNAKES ON A PLANE!"

Now you go again.

Weesa gonna die?


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: HaemishM on April 04, 2007, 08:53:01 AM

I don't think I'm going to retract anything.


You said that 'You Can't Seperate The Art From The Artist.'

I said 'That's Bollocks'.

I think with film, it's REALLY bollocks in most cases because film is such a collaborative medium. Sure, the director calls the shots, but there's so many things and people he has to rely on to make a good movie that just saying it's HIS art is wrongheaded. Even with guys like Robert Rodriguez you have extra people on the set, and there's always the actors as well. A good director can get a great performance out of a mediocre actor, but a great actor can save a mediocre director's bacon. Shit, where would Lucas be without the ILM guys, or the presence of Harrison Ford?

Ice Pirates, that's where he'd be.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Strazos on April 04, 2007, 08:56:09 AM
Ironwood, we're hating on Old Masters now?


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2007, 08:59:46 AM
We're doing what now ?


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 04, 2007, 10:45:43 AM
Damn. You're going on about cult of celebrity now?

If you're willing to admit that one can gather insight by understanding an artist beforehand, then that's good enough. We don't need to go any further. I wasn't trying to head into People magazine territory with my stance. 


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Morat20 on April 04, 2007, 11:13:04 AM
You know, the funny thing is I truly enjoyed the hell out of Serenity and would love to see Firefly revived but I'm surprised it placed so high on that list. It made like $5 at the theater.

Hey, Joss Whedon made it, this could lead right into the main derail again. (I happen to like everything he's done on TV and most of his movies. I'll give him a pass on some of the script's he helped with. I mean, he wrote Alien Ressurection but he also wrote Toy Story, right?)
Making money and "being a good movie" aren't always the same thing. (I'm not going to say "never" --- fuck people who claim if it's popular, it can't be good.) It made back it's investment (trust me, the "It cost XX million dollars" to make stuff is bullshit. It rarely costs as much as they claim. That's what it costs if you ignore sweetheart deals, tax breaks, and all the other fun ways Hollywood defrays costs), which is more than a lot of sci-fi films.

As for Whedon and Alien Ressurection, I believe he disavows all knowledge of that script -- which isn't surprising, as I understand several other people butchered the script after he was done.

Frankly, I'm just marking time until Fox's ownership of the rights to produce Firefly on TV expire. I'm kind of hoping Whedom takes another whack at it on Sci-Fi or something. Most writers, I think, would have a serious problem working out when to place it (before the movie? After the movie? Some before, then some after?) or how to handle the big changes the movie introduced, but I think Whedon would do okay.

I doubt it'll happen, but what the hell. Hoping doesn't cost me anything.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 04, 2007, 01:52:51 PM
Frankly, I'm just marking time until Fox's ownership of the rights to produce Firefly on TV expire. I'm kind of hoping Whedom takes another whack at it on Sci-Fi or something. Most writers, I think, would have a serious problem working out when to place it (before the movie? After the movie? Some before, then some after?) or how to handle the big changes the movie introduced, but I think Whedon would do okay.


I hold out the same hope. Or that he can find a way to continue Firefly in another medium. Buffy has moved to comic books so maybe the same with Firefly? That said I'll settle for Fox never getting its grubby paws on another tv show I care about. (There are very few of them so the odds are good: Supernatural, Dexter and BSG are about it for me and Supernatural is a guilty pleasure.)


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Paelos on April 04, 2007, 02:09:46 PM
I don't get it about Firefly sometimes. I just wasn't awed by the project much at all, but it seems it has quite the following here.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Morat20 on April 04, 2007, 02:38:16 PM
I don't get it about Firefly sometimes. I just wasn't awed by the project much at all, but it seems it has quite the following here.
Sometimes I wonder myself, and I'm part of the fan club. Part of it was the way it was killed -- it's like the poster child for every show cancelled because of stupid fucking executives who couldn't find their dick without a map and the aid of a bored secretary. DVD sales alone vindicated everyone who hated it was cancelled, and they shared it with other people.

Thinking back, when it was cancelled -- it was probably the first good show to unfairly get the axe (out of hundreds over the last few decades) in the age of the insta-Season on DVD. A lot of people (myself included) never saw it on FOX. We saw it on DVD -- in the proper order, with the best (and never aired) episodes at the end. Right away -- before the body had cooled, so to speak and the show had faded into the past.

We got to see it without Fox's fuckups, and it was just really obvious that the flaw wasn't so much the product, but the network.

The only reason it's not on the air now -- just on DVD sales (which resurrected Family Guy) -- is that Whedon won't work with Fox. I don't blame him. It seemed damn obvious they wanted that show to fail, and made sure it happened. I honestly think that, by the time Fox's rights to it expire, Whedon will have moved on and it won't get resurrected.

But who knows? Family Guy and Futurama give me a bit of hope. :)


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2007, 03:05:43 PM
Damn. You're going on about cult of celebrity now?

If you're willing to admit that one can gather insight by understanding an artist beforehand, then that's good enough. We don't need to go any further. I wasn't trying to head into People magazine territory with my stance. 


Wow.  Who are you talking to ?

How magnanimous.  You make no mention of the fact that you were totally wrong.  You really ought to retract your stupid statement about the fact that you CAN'T seperate the art from the artist.

Because it's stupid.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Paelos on April 04, 2007, 03:31:41 PM
SHAMPOO IS BETTER! I MAKE THE HAIR CLEAN AND SHINY!

NOOOO, CONDITIONER IS BETTER! I MAKE THE HAIR SILKY AND SMOOTH!

<whack whack whack>


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 04, 2007, 03:48:28 PM
Wow.  Who are you talking to ?

How magnanimous.  You make no mention of the fact that you were totally wrong.  You really ought to retract your stupid statement about the fact that you CAN'T seperate the art from the artist.

Because it's stupid.

Huh? Where did that come from?

Here I thought I was trying meet you at some middle ground, using your own comments to do it, and yet, you give me this shit. Like I was being insulting in that reply or something.

Don't want to be nice? Fuck you then. That's my only answer now. You don't just get to say you're right by fiat, and expect me to say I'm wrong simply because you made a reply. Saying "Bollocks" and doing your usual Ironwood-Handwaving is not going to make me "retract" that easily. I'm not just some bullshit printer repairman who pulled some "authoritative" shit about artists out of his ass yesterday.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Gutboy Barrelhouse on April 04, 2007, 05:17:42 PM
/fight!

/getpopcorn

/settleintoeasychair



Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 04, 2007, 09:21:31 PM
It's the last thing I care to fight about really. Ironwood can say what he wants. I'll make no further replies after what he says next. I have enough experience with applying myself into my work, and being appreciated for it -- and it's the same case with my grandmother, my mother, my brother, and any friend who's involved with art. People go to them for what they specifically bring to the table, for who they are as people, and what they've done in the past. Even the smallest nuance of what makes a person who they are and how they see, judge, and revise things in their own particular way comes through in their art. Even how they move or operate physically effects their art. How they were raised effects their art. Where they live, what they believe, who they love, who they hate effects their art. Some seemingly insignificant moment when they were 9 years old, knee deep in the grass, and examing bugs or dead birds or pieces of dogshit effects their art.

Only one person I know is a "celebrity" in their field -- and none of that means dick to what I was referring to. I said this was about style and personal sensibility from the getgo. It applies to all art, at any stage. It's a simple point that isn't even in the "debatable" realm. I'm not retracting shit.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Evil Elvis on April 04, 2007, 11:03:55 PM
Ice Pirates, that's where he'd be.

Dem's fightin' words.  Ice Pirates was boss.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 05, 2007, 01:20:20 AM
It's the last thing I care to fight about really. Ironwood can say what he wants. I'll make no further replies after what he says next. I have enough experience with applying myself into my work, and being appreciated for it -- and it's the same case with my grandmother, my mother, my brother, and any friend who's involved with art. People go to them for what they specifically bring to the table, for who they are as people, and what they've done in the past. Even the smallest nuance of what makes a person who they are and how they see, judge, and revise things in their own particular way comes through in their art. Even how they move or operate physically effects their art. How they were raised effects their art. Where they live, what they believe, who they love, who they hate effects their art. Some seemingly insignificant moment when they were 9 years old, knee deep in the grass, and examing bugs or dead birds or pieces of dogshit effects their art.

Only one person I know is a "celebrity" in their field -- and none of that means dick to what I was referring to. I said this was about style and personal sensibility from the getgo. It applies to all art, at any stage. It's a simple point that isn't even in the "debatable" realm. I'm not retracting shit.

/wince

Oh Good God.   That was painful to read.

Tell you what, go to your local art gallery and have a look.  Or go to a library and pick up a novel by someone you've never heard of.  Or watch a movie from a foreign director that'll make no sense to you.

Now either enjoy it or don't and then come back here.  Describe the art and how it made you feel and what it did for you.  Then admit that you know fuck all about the artist in question and tell me again that it's impossible to seperate Art from the Artist.

I put it to you that Art exists only through the medium of your own intepretations.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 05, 2007, 02:23:20 AM
Tell you what, go to your local art gallery and have a look.  Or go to a library and pick up a novel by someone you've never heard of.  Or watch a movie from a foreign director that'll make no sense to you.

Now either enjoy it or don't and then come back here.  Describe the art and how it made you feel and what it did for you.  Then admit that you know fuck all about the artist in question and tell me again that it's impossible to seperate Art from the Artist.

I put it to you that Art exists only through the medium of your own intepretations.

Damnit, can't resist.


I do that all the time, Ironwood. And I immediately get interested in what went on in the person's mind who created those things. Appreciating the work and wanting to know the creator are one and the same. That's how it works. No work of art is a thing unto itself -- it comes from somewhere. And the only way for me to fully get a grasp of it is to know where. Some fields it's easier to associate with the creators themselves -- like dancers, singers, and actors. Others are less transparent, but it's still all the same.

I would never understand where Van Gogh was coming from in his period in Arles without realizing he was trying to find the closest thing he could that catered to his Japanese fetish. I would never understand where Tom Verlaine came up with those crazy hammer-on's of his without finally realizing he was really a sax player before, didn't care for guitars as much, and was only trying to recreate the experience. I would never understand where Vonnegut gets his apocalyptic imagery (and why he keeps focusing on it) without realizing that he was on the ground during the Dresden firebombings. And so on and so forth.

Despite whatever bullshit coloring book "creativity" you think you have, art isn't fucking canned goods, dispensed out of some irrelevant artist's ass. Works of art have a story behind them, a personal experience, an emotion, a setting, an enemy or a lover, or just a simple inclination towards something that breathes these things into being. Just because you in particular don't think it's important doesn't make it so. It just makes you a fucking peasant.

/wince

Oh Good God.   That was painful to read.

If you're going to be an asshole, at least be sincere about it. You're just being a smartass chump again. It wasn't painful.

And again: Fuck you too.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Tebonas on April 05, 2007, 04:17:31 AM
I disagree, maybe more respectfully but just as vehemently as Ironwood.

I disagree not only as a consumer, but as a writer as well. The usage of words are an art, the way you bring emotions out of people with those words, the way you bring their heads to a certain place with them, thats the art. I can enjoy the works of people I could punch into the face, because their art has nothing to do with their views. Its makebelieve, its forcing words into patterns for desirable effects.

Thats what I appreciate in art. Not because I am a "fucking peasant", but because for me those are the important things.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Roac on April 05, 2007, 06:51:07 AM
I would never understand where Van Gogh was coming from in his period in Arles without ...

So what?  If I'm going to appreciate art, most of the time I care more about what it means to me, not to the artist.  The very fact that it is interpretive means that I don't have to accept anyone else's take on it, including the artist's.  I can, if I like; but I am more often than not interested in what the art says about my views, biases, feelings, and so forth.  Certainly an artist's background is going to have a good deal of influence on the end product, but that doesn't mean my take has to line up with that background, or their views, in any form.  Likewise, most artists have among their own creations things they feel are their best and worst; my oppinion may be in total contrast, and finding out the artist's views after forming my own oppinion doesn't change them one iota. 

And beyond that, someone has already pointed out that movies are collaborative efforts anyway.  A movie isn't a director's view; it's the view of the writers, the producer, the director, the actors, the prop designers, and more.  A writer may find that what was a decent work was cut to shreds by a bad director, or saved by a good one.  Or a bad director may find that even he can't spoil an incredible performance by the lead actor. 


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Sky on April 05, 2007, 07:17:47 AM
I don't get it about Firefly sometimes. I just wasn't awed by the project much at all, but it seems it has quite the following here.
Great dialogue.

Oh, and I agree with Stray here. Art contains part of the artist. Doesn't mean you have to like him, I don't like a lot of great musicians I've met. My girlfriend is surprised by how easily I can overcome someone's asshole personality if they're a good musician. Because a lot of good musicians are assholes. But the yin to that yang is that they have a beautiful creative soul. I often wonder if there's a connection. You may not /know/ what part of the art is the artist, but your ignorance doesn't invalidate the fact.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Engels on April 05, 2007, 08:40:14 AM
Although I think Stray's being somewhat abused for an off the cuff comment earlier on, I just have two things to say to Stray:

Homer

Shakespeare


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Lantyssa on April 05, 2007, 09:51:07 AM
I find I cannot stand the works of someone I cannot respect.  It may be wonderful given no context, and ignorance can certainly be bliss for me when it comes to this, but if I know enough to dislike the artist there is no point in showing me anything of theirs.  Feeling someone is an amazing person does not cause me to like a work any better.

Art in any form rarely moves me though.  Maybe that is why knowledge of the person can affect my perception.  Maybe it's just I feel the work is tainted and doesn't deserve recognition.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 05, 2007, 06:31:50 PM
Quote from: BBC article
Space thriller Serenity has beaten Star Wars to the title of best sci-fi movie in an SFX magazine poll of 3,000 fans...

...who, judging by the box office returns, were apparently the only 3000 people to buy tickets.

OH SNIZZAP.

But no, I kid.  Serenity was actually pretty good when I finally caught it on cable a while back, and I wasn't even a Firefly fan.  If they had made another one, I'd have watched it.  Just remember that if you can point to Britney Spears record sales and sagely intone that not everything popular is any good, I can just as easily point to Vanguard and tell you that having a tiny-but-rabid core fanbase of internet geeks means nothing if nobody else gives a shit.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Morat20 on April 05, 2007, 08:02:12 PM
Quote from: BBC article
Space thriller Serenity has beaten Star Wars to the title of best sci-fi movie in an SFX magazine poll of 3,000 fans...

...who, judging by the box office returns, were apparently the only 3000 people to buy tickets.

OH SNIZZAP.

But no, I kid.  Serenity was actually pretty good when I finally caught it on cable a while back, and I wasn't even a Firefly fan.  If they had made another one, I'd have watched it.  Just remember that if you can point to Britney Spears record sales and sagely intone that not everything popular is any good, I can just as easily point to Vanguard and tell you that having a tiny-but-rabid core fanbase of internet geeks means nothing if nobody else gives a shit.
Firefly DVD sets sales were huge -- they quickly sold through the actual people who watched the show when it aired. I borrowed the first disc from a friend, and ended up buying the box set off of that (it was 40 bucks, and I didn't have to wait until after the weekend for Disc 2). Loaned the first disc to my father-in-law, and he did the same thing.

Lot of word of mouth. 20-odd million for a sci-fi release really isn't bad. No big-name stars, based on a tv-show, sci-fi -- it had "I'll fucking suck as a movie" written all over it to the average theatergoer.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 05, 2007, 08:13:12 PM
All sci-fi peen-waving aside, the big problem with Serenity was that they overbudgeted.  I'm sure fans would rather have seen a movie with effects closer to TV level, but which was successful enough proportionately to merit sequels.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Evil Elvis on April 05, 2007, 08:59:27 PM
40 million isn't alot for a sci-fi action movie.

Most mouth breathers don't care about a movie's story, they just want to see big name actors showing titties and blowing shit up.  Even Sandra Bullock is a big enough name to draw in 40+ million domestic for a shit film.  No big names, no big name directors, no big box office.  Add in poor advertising through traditional channels, and you're just bracing for impact.

I'd guess the studio has [just barely] recouped production + advertising costs.  But it's a good movie, and good movies will sell strong later down the road.  Noone's going to buy fucking Premonition 10 years from now in Hi-Def Cortex Feed, but Serenity will still sell.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Trippy on April 05, 2007, 09:23:43 PM
40 million isn't alot for a sci-fi action movie.
40 million isn't a lot for a Hollywood studio movie in general. For example, The Spy Kids movies were made for around $40 million each and Robert Rodriguez is known for making movies "cheaply" by major studio standards.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Roac on April 05, 2007, 10:19:38 PM
All sci-fi peen-waving aside, the big problem with Serenity was that they overbudgeted. 

Uh, no.  They went on the cheap for that movie, considering with sci-fi you kinda need interesting sets and effects of some sort.  A good bit of the press at the time was how he got so much bang for so little dough. 


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 06, 2007, 03:33:04 AM
Tell you what, go to your local art gallery and have a look.  Or go to a library and pick up a novel by someone you've never heard of.  Or watch a movie from a foreign director that'll make no sense to you.

Now either enjoy it or don't and then come back here.  Describe the art and how it made you feel and what it did for you.  Then admit that you know fuck all about the artist in question and tell me again that it's impossible to seperate Art from the Artist.

I put it to you that Art exists only through the medium of your own intepretations.

Damnit, can't resist.


I do that all the time, Ironwood. And I immediately get interested in what went on in the person's mind who created those things. Appreciating the work and wanting to know the creator are one and the same. That's how it works. No work of art is a thing unto itself -- it comes from somewhere. And the only way for me to fully get a grasp of it is to know where. Some fields it's easier to associate with the creators themselves -- like dancers, singers, and actors. Others are less transparent, but it's still all the same.

I would never understand where Van Gogh was coming from in his period in Arles without realizing he was trying to find the closest thing he could that catered to his Japanese fetish. I would never understand where Tom Verlaine came up with those crazy hammer-on's of his without finally realizing he was really a sax player before, didn't care for guitars as much, and was only trying to recreate the experience. I would never understand where Vonnegut gets his apocalyptic imagery (and why he keeps focusing on it) without realizing that he was on the ground during the Dresden firebombings. And so on and so forth.

Despite whatever bullshit coloring book "creativity" you think you have, art isn't fucking canned goods, dispensed out of some irrelevant artist's ass. Works of art have a story behind them, a personal experience, an emotion, a setting, an enemy or a lover, or just a simple inclination towards something that breathes these things into being. Just because you in particular don't think it's important doesn't make it so. It just makes you a fucking peasant.

/wince

Oh Good God.   That was painful to read.

If you're going to be an asshole, at least be sincere about it. You're just being a smartass chump again. It wasn't painful.

And again: Fuck you too.

It WAS Painful, that above also was painful because it's really, really, really hard over the internet to comprehend just how lunatic you are.  You're completely missing the point (and, in fact, ignoring it) in order to make yourself RIGHT.

You CAN seperate the Art from the Artist.  It's about conception and comprehension and, frankly, if you require a 3000 word thesis on the life and times of Van Gogh to like his fucking piccies, then I have to wonder what kinda fucking irony beast is rampaging in your head to call ME a peasant.  (Oh and bravo on that too.  Groping for invective to sling and you come up with Peasant.  Waaaaay to prove my point about Art these days as being full of elitist arseholes and their handjob giving cronies.)

You're 3 Paragraphs up there are totally, totally, totally fucking irrelevant.

1 - "I do it all the time"  :  I put it to you that I could feed you a SHIT story about the artist and you'd wander away thinking you'd come to some grand conclusion.  You fucking Peasant.  Learn to think for yourself.  Appreciate the art for what it does FOR YOU.  It's YOUR interpretation.  And you know what ?  An Unmade Bed is just a fucking mess thrown about by some callous opinionated Cunt and then wanked over by other Callous opinionated Cunts that quite literally do it to keep themselves Relevant.

2 -  "I would never understand Van Gogh" :  You know what ?  You still fucking don't.  You have no idea what was going through his batshit little head and scanning the dry pages of the life and times of Gogh and where he fucking lived should do fuck all for you.  What should is 'Damn, that's a nice painting of some flowers'.

3 - "Life, History, Breathing the creation of fruits of my vagina with labours of many splendoured colours" :  I Put it to you that tons and tons of bad art can say the same.  Further, I put it that the guy who does your drywall or paves your road could say the same.  Come back and tell me it's art.

You're defending a position that's not right.  Unless, as discussed, you want to take an unknown peice of art from and unknown artist and dismiss it totally.  Which really, really, really makes you an elitist douchebag.



Or we could agree to disagree.  It's up to you.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: schild on April 06, 2007, 03:45:10 AM
holy shit

did i just read art theory on f13

no really

i just lost the ability to capitalize

fuck you guys

i quit art theory when i quit being a teaching assistant for art theory

i mean really its a bunch of bullshit

seriously id know

now stfu


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Tebonas on April 06, 2007, 03:56:08 AM
I know that feeling!

I went to a technical school and learned about electrical engineering. I hate everything regarding the hardware parts of electrical engineering now and work something as far away from that as I can.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 06, 2007, 03:59:22 AM
Ok, THIS  (http://movies.msn.com/movies/tarantino?GT1=7701) is for you then Schildly.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Sky on April 06, 2007, 07:16:27 AM
I was an art major for a while, too. And it always turned into this thread. I blame John Travolta.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Murgos on April 06, 2007, 08:36:03 AM
I took a 2 credit art appreciation class in college and I think I have a better understanding of art than either Ironwood or Stray.

But that's kind of the point of art, every asshole's opinion is valid.  Because, you know, it's a personal thing.  Art can be removed from the artist but also, art can be appreciated while having full knowledge of the artists history and intent, all at the same time and all in the same person.  It's not that difficult a concept.

I can appreciate that Sunflowers is one of the most idyllic and peaceful images every created by man.  I can also appreciate that it does this by not even looking really like a bowl of sunflowers.  I can also appreciate that this was created by a nut job who cut off his ear in a fit of passion and by all reports was seconds away from suicide most of his life.

The concepts aren't mutually exclusive.  The only person who doesn't 'get' art is the assmunch telling you that you don't get it.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Triforcer on April 06, 2007, 08:48:00 AM
I once saw a Campbell's soup can when I opened it and them somebody later said the can was involved in art somehow.  Therefore I know more about art than all of you.  I also cut my finger on the can.   


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Signe on April 06, 2007, 09:17:18 AM
I once saw a Campbell's soup can when I opened it and them somebody later said the can was involved in art somehow.  Therefore I know more about art than all of you.  I also cut my finger on the can.   

I can understand suffering for your OWN art... but someone else's?  That's just daft.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Morat20 on April 06, 2007, 09:59:21 AM
I once saw a Campbell's soup can when I opened it and them somebody later said the can was involved in art somehow.  Therefore I know more about art than all of you.  I also cut my finger on the can.   
I once pissed in the bathroom at the Uffizi. I think I understand art better than all of you.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: schild on April 06, 2007, 01:20:58 PM
I could inflict pain in literary form in the likes of which none of you could ever imagine.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Lantyssa on April 06, 2007, 01:30:11 PM
I was a TA.  You cannot possibly write that poorly.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Sky on April 06, 2007, 01:49:59 PM
How cool! I like both T and A!

 :-P


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Lantyssa on April 06, 2007, 03:31:23 PM
Teaching Assistant.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: naum on April 06, 2007, 05:23:03 PM
What does any of this have to do with Shadowbane?


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: ahoythematey on April 06, 2007, 05:48:56 PM
Because artists play to crush, not to sip chai tea?


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: HaemishM on April 09, 2007, 11:09:56 AM
No, it's because artists cut off their own ears over

sb.exe


RAGE


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: bhodi on April 10, 2007, 09:53:19 PM
Art. (http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=7*).

I thought it was cool, so I dug this thread up.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 11, 2007, 04:41:53 AM
Can you give me a little of the guys history and family tree so I can be impressed ?


In seriousness, I find that cool also.  And a little frightening.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 11, 2007, 05:07:31 AM
You called? :)


Seriously though, why do you keep singing that tune? Nothing I ever said had anything to do with charting out someone's personal life before I could dig their art. It was merely about attaching works of art to the people who made them.  Like, if I like something, then it's only natural for me to find more info on who made it, to find out what else they've done, to keep track on what they plan for the future, and to understand their perspective better (that is, if their works have some kind of inside joke or foreign reference).

Selby's original post made it seem like it was silly to be a fan of someone, and to keep on top of what they're doing -- And I was only making a statement against that. All of this other shit you keep on talking about is both unrealistic, irrelevant, and blown way out of proportion.

[EDIT] Damn man, this isn't even remotely "deep" or "complicated" or "quarrelsome" or what have you.

And your capacity to misconstrue all of this like I'm saying one needs to be acquainted with the artist first, before you even see their work, amazes me. You have to be an unnaturally cynical person to think I'm actually stupid enough to make that opinion. I wouldn't even project that on to a gashuffing retard.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 11, 2007, 05:26:50 AM
You were making a statement of an absolute that was incorrect.

But hey, let's not do this again.

Let's instead repair to the Woot thread and take the piss out of SimuKaren's Donkey-like thighs.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 11, 2007, 05:40:22 AM
Fair enough.

Read my edit though. Whether I made some absolutes or not, I think you went too far away from what I was even trying to address.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Selby on April 11, 2007, 05:50:58 AM
Selby's original post made it seem like it was silly to be a fan of someone, and to keep on top of what they're doing
You misunderstood me.  My point was that it was silly to blindly hate someone's work despite it actually being "good" just because you didn't like the person as an artist or as a human being.  Uwe Boll was just a very extreme example of someone who generates such rage against his "work" which is mostly justified.  If he were to produce an actual good film, I would have no problem enjoying it.  But the odds of that are so low it's almost laughable based on his previous track record.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 11, 2007, 06:12:45 AM
Sorry for not understanding you. But yeah, Uwe is a horrible example really. It makes whatever point you're making that much harder to wrap my head around, I guess  :-P

I'll be honest though: I would still hate his "good" film (if there ever was one). I'm pretty much inclined to hate anything he ever does at this point. I think that no matter what level of technical competence he reached, and no matter how well he executed something, his films would still suck. At best, they would just be well executed shit.

I don't believe that guy has any decent sense or good underlying ideas at all. If he did, then even his most poorly executed films would have shown some proof of that already. There are directors who created even worst fiascos than he has, but yet, some of them still had some cool things to say or show. They were shitty directors, but with some potential. Uwe Boll, on the other hand, is one of the directors who seems to be shitty on all fronts.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Engels on April 11, 2007, 09:28:20 AM
On the other hand, there are perfect asshat artists, like Arthur C Clark and Spike Lee, who actually make decent stuff. I really enjoyed the Rama series and the 2001 Odysey, as well as most Spike Lee movies, but I think they're both assholes.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Signe on April 11, 2007, 10:43:21 AM
Isn't Spike Lee the reason for poor old Imus' (whoever the F word he is) ho woe?

(don't say "ho woe" out loud if someone else is within hearing distance  :oops:)


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Lantyssa on April 11, 2007, 12:37:03 PM
Hi!


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Signe on April 11, 2007, 01:01:41 PM
Hi!

Oh no!  Just now I realised how dorky we really are!  Lots.  (http://www.banglacommunity.com/images/satellite/smilies/hello.gif)


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 11, 2007, 01:20:41 PM
On the other hand, there are perfect asshat artists, like Arthur C Clark and Spike Lee, who actually make decent stuff. I really enjoyed the Rama series and the 2001 Odysey, as well as most Spike Lee movies, but I think they're both assholes.

Just out of curiosity, why is Clark an asshat? I don't know much about him.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Lantyssa on April 11, 2007, 02:30:01 PM
Hi!
Oh no!  Just now I realised how dorky we really are!  Lots.  (http://www.banglacommunity.com/images/satellite/smilies/hello.gif)
:-D


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Engels on April 11, 2007, 11:50:02 PM
On the other hand, there are perfect asshat artists, like Arthur C Clark and Spike Lee, who actually make decent stuff. I really enjoyed the Rama series and the 2001 Odysey, as well as most Spike Lee movies, but I think they're both assholes.

Just out of curiosity, why is Clark an asshat? I don't know much about him.

Well, asshat is probably too strong a word. I was thinking more of Spike Lee at the time. That said, there's something uncomfortable for me in the way he treated his woman character in Rama, and the fact that Bowman in 2001 is a total jackass, but I'm not sure the author though him to be at the time.

I was not, however, refering to any paedophilia allegations, since I believe that they are groundless.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: CmdrSlack on April 12, 2007, 06:13:24 AM
I was not, however, refering to any paedophilia allegations, since I believe that they are groundless.

"So Mr. Clarke, when did you stop beating your wife?"


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 12, 2007, 06:36:47 AM
On the other hand, there are perfect asshat artists, like Arthur C Clark and Spike Lee, who actually make decent stuff. I really enjoyed the Rama series and the 2001 Odysey, as well as most Spike Lee movies, but I think they're both assholes.

Just a brief sidetrack. Spike Lee breaks my rule about seperating the artist from the art. I cannot even force myself to be in the same room when a Spike Lee movie is on. If he is being interviewed I have to change the channel or I get angry.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Ironwood on April 12, 2007, 07:07:21 AM
I don't get it.  Not because I have a view, but precisely the opposite.  What's wrong with Spike Lee ?

And can someone tell me where that beating your wife thing first came from ?  I'm aware of the meaning, but not the origin.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: HaemishM on April 12, 2007, 08:59:25 AM
Spike Lee sued Spike TV for infringing the copyright on his name (instead of just their existence as a shitty, testosterone filled orgy of man spew). Also, he can't shut the fuck up, even when he has no business speaking. He's a real asshole.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Llava on April 12, 2007, 08:01:27 PM
What's wrong with Spike Lee ?

He makes shitty movies, for one.

"What do you want from me?!?!"
"I want you to kill.  Kill!  KIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!"

-Dialogue from Summer of Sam


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Signe on April 13, 2007, 05:15:43 AM
I recently saw that film he did about Hurricane Katrina and thought it was very good.  I also kind of liked "Do The Right Thing" but that's it, really.  I don't think I've liked anything else of his that I've seen, and I've actually tried to watch quite a few of his films.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 13, 2007, 05:32:37 AM
I wouldn't consider myself a huge fan, but there's quite a lot I like from him.

Do the Right Thing
The 25th Hour
When the Levees Broke
Four Little Girls
Malcolm X
Huey P Newton
He Got Game
Jungle Fever
Clockers
Inside Man

and... The old Jordan commercials ;)


Freaking amazing track record with me really... And yet, I don't think about him much.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 13, 2007, 06:18:05 AM
Spike Lee sued Spike TV for infringing the copyright on his name (instead of just their existence as a shitty, testosterone filled orgy of man spew). Also, he can't shut the fuck up, even when he has no business speaking. He's a real asshole.

Suing Spike TV didn't bother me. I just thought he was stupid to do it. (On a side note I'm glad Spike TV exists. Something has to balance out Oxygen and Lifetime.)

It's the second that bothers me, that and I think his views are closer to old school Malcolm X than say an MLK.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: stray on April 13, 2007, 06:30:36 AM
If he was close to old school Malcolm X, then there'd be no white devils in his movies at all. Let alone ones who are the leading stars.

Nor would he have made that Malcolm X flick that emphasized the latter Malcolm X's journey ;).


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Signe on April 13, 2007, 06:43:06 AM
I haven't seen "Inside Man" but it looks like something I might like.  Of course, that could just be the Denzel Washington swoonage effect.  I forgot about "Four Little Girls."  I thought that was pretty good, too.  I didn't even know he did a film about Malcolm X, actually.  I did read the book it was probably based on, though.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Sky on April 13, 2007, 07:51:17 AM
I don't care for Spike Lee, but the documentary on Katrina was nice, if heavy handed at times. I'd say 80% of it was perfect, when he wasn't in editorializing Spike mode.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Murgos on April 13, 2007, 08:03:50 AM
I'm not sure about Arthur C. Clarke being an asshat but I always felt that his plantation in India Sri Lanka was a bit over the top.


Title: Re: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously
Post by: Furiously on April 13, 2007, 09:16:46 AM
And can someone tell me where that beating your wife thing first came from ?  I'm aware of the meaning, but not the origin.

The Megarians (3d century B.C.), their version was "Do you still beat your father? Answer yes or no."