OT: Movies/TV Shows
- Thread starter BeLeafer
- Start date
Montana
Champion
I think you’d enjoy The Straight Story, and if you hadn’t been told it was Lynch, would never in a million years have suspected as much.
JackBurton
Well-known member
Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet...damn.
SundinsTooth
Leafs Moderator
Blue Velvet is pretty clear and coherent.
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
I don't really appreciate movies like that generally, where you have to twist and contort and watch it five times and read an online review or two to know what the filmmaker actually intended. I had to basically do that to pass my fucking Civil Procedure class in law school. I don't need that in my entertainment. It's similar to the "you decide what happened!" bullshit that they did at the end of Sopranos. Just fucking show it.
Like another one that I was kinda excited to go to was Tree of Life with Brad Pitt back in the day. Terrence Malick. Fucking outrageously bad. I can't recall if we walked out, but I think we did. What am I to interpret from interstitials featuring dinosaurs or asteroids or whatever the hell else there was? No thanks.
JackBurton
Well-known member
I think it is. It has "Weird" things in it for sure, but fairly easy to follow. It's a great film.
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
JackBurton
Well-known member
Don't forget Elephant Man
Montana
Champion
the funny thing is, Lynch is the last person who would want you to do that….he hopes you’ll feel certain things watching it, very different things scene to scene….but that it’s your own unique experience/interpretation.
I also think he’d be perfectly fine with it not being your thing.
Life doesn’t “just fucking show it”….and some art reflects that.
One of my all time favourite films. See it probably a dozen times & spent $55 for the criterion collection blu-ray,
Last edited:
Montana
Champion
Straight Story first cause it’s the got the highest probability you’ll enjoy it….then imo, prob Blue Velvet then Eraserhead.
Slinger 48
Well-known member
The Straight Story is a favourite of mine, have watched it several time and will probably watch it again soon after it being mentioned here. I didn't know, or had forgotten at least, that it is a David Lynch film.
I've enjoyed some of his stuff but haven't seen the ones you guys are talking about. They are now on my list to check out.
Montana
Champion
A David Lynch Disney film, no less….which is honestly very Lynchian in an of itself.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
I think there's a major, major difference between capturing onsite and then using a technical software tool to create a work of intellectual property (I use photoshop & davinci resolve on a daily basis to create IP that I license to various types of clients) and prompting an AI "Give me an architecturally relevant sky line photo taken at twilight on a clear evening".
If the AI in question was a true AI and didn't require scraping the work of humans (all of which is already copyright protected) to create original works, then sure. But the only way current AI "creates" is through copying aspects of other work it's scraped from the internet to "learn" from. It's a pattern guessing machine, not a general intelligence with the capacity for independent creation.
Montana
Champion
If you have 5 mins, you should check out these two reviews of “A Tree of Life” one from Roger Ebert’s 4 star review of it, and Matt Zoller Seitz review of it when they named it the best film of the decade.
not to change your mind at all…..but just as an exercise in seeing what those who love it are taking away
The blink of a life, enclosed by time and space movie review (2011) | Roger Ebert
If I set out to make an autobiographical film, and if I had Malick's gift, it would look so much like this.
www.rogerebert.com
The Best Films of the 2010s: The Tree of Life | Features | Roger Ebert
Matt Zoller Seitz on the RogerEbert.com pick for the best film of the 2010s, Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life.
www.rogerebert.com
They’re also just two really great pieces of film criticism.
axlsalinger
Well-known member
Always had a strong interest in film, and enjoy or can at least appreciate the work of most major "auteurs", but for whatever reason never had much interest in David Lynch. I guess it's just because I don't care for the "weirdness for weirdness sake" he's kinda known for. I simply disagree that a person has to watch a movie 5 times or read essays about it in order to "get it".
Nothing against him and always wanted to check out more of his work, but looking at his filmography now, just nothing there that ever caught my interest. Have only ever watched Wild at Heart and Mulholland Drive. Pretty sure I saw a chunk of Blue Velvet as well. I really don't remember much about any of them. I do seem to recall that even though Mulholland Drive was weird and confusing as advertised, I did actually like it.
Twin Peaks has always been on my list, since it first aired, but for whatever reason never got around to it, other than watching the 1st episode a couple of years ago on Netflix, which I thought was pretty good, just never got back to it.
Nothing against him and always wanted to check out more of his work, but looking at his filmography now, just nothing there that ever caught my interest. Have only ever watched Wild at Heart and Mulholland Drive. Pretty sure I saw a chunk of Blue Velvet as well. I really don't remember much about any of them. I do seem to recall that even though Mulholland Drive was weird and confusing as advertised, I did actually like it.
Twin Peaks has always been on my list, since it first aired, but for whatever reason never got around to it, other than watching the 1st episode a couple of years ago on Netflix, which I thought was pretty good, just never got back to it.
Slinger 48
Well-known member
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
I get what you're saying, but I think it's grayer than you're making it. Scraping from other people's work, any different than countless artists who are inspired by other people's work and then emulate them and create similar works of art, using aspects of their work, sometimes total hacks and other times less subtle facsimiles? We're all basically AI in that sense. In every job we've ever performed, we've learned from others and then take parts of that with us to do our independent work. The originality factor is obviously in the idea to tell the AI to create something, and then it goes and does its thing and delivers a product to you, which generally you'd want to then refine and add the personal touch to complete it.
Like that Secret Invasion opening - it drew on a zillion things it found from scouring online and then created something completely original that literally nobody can claim infringed on their work or even be able to prove that it drew on any aspect of what they did. How do you go about proving anything here? And how is that different from any other situation where someone creates something original? If you can't even begin to prove any infringement because it's drawing on some microscopic aspect of your work along with an almost infinite number of others, then why can't what you created with AI be copyrightable?
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
I will check these out when I get a sec. Thanks. No matter what they say, I'm never going to like a film whose focus is a family drama that cuts out to random shots of outer space, and a cricket playing guitar, and a hippo giving birth to a mongoose, but I am genuinely interested in why anyone would walk away not just liking that film, but loving it.If you have 5 mins, you should check out these two reviews of “A Tree of Life” one from Roger Ebert’s 4 star review of it, and Matt Zoller Seitz review of it when they named it the best film of the decade.
not to change your mind at all…..but just as an exercise in seeing what those who love it are taking away
The blink of a life, enclosed by time and space movie review (2011) | Roger Ebert
If I set out to make an autobiographical film, and if I had Malick's gift, it would look so much like this.
The Best Films of the 2010s: The Tree of Life | Features | Roger Ebert
Matt Zoller Seitz on the RogerEbert.com pick for the best film of the 2010s, Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life.
They’re also just two really great pieces of film criticism.
There's a reason you don't tend to see most of these films have a second life on tv later. I think they're just almost universally put aside and can't be monetized even in a modest way later.
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
True, but a clip of a martian masturbating on Venus has no place in a movie about father-son relationships on Earth, even if I might be curious as to why the martian didn't just do his thing on Mars.