Christ Centered Gamer

I stand with ohno * tosses him shotgun*

I think The Avengers was hyped up as an extremely fun, humorous and SUPER COOL superhero movie. I think The Dark Knight was hyped up as the best movie ever made... in general. I think one of those movies met the hype, and the other, you know, didn't. >__>

And I adore both of them. I think The Dark Knight is an incredible movie. I also think it's deeply flawed, which I don't really hold against it, but I do think it doesn't justify the insane fanboyism and worship that surrounds it. There's a strange phenomena attached to most of Christopher Nolan's films where the fans of his movies poop their pants and have a temper tantrum if you say you aren't frothing at the mouth enthusiastic for Inception or the The Dark Knight or whatever. It bugs me. IT BUGS ME A LOT.

I also think it's a mistake to say "this is the best superhero movie EVER" when "superhero" is such a loose genre. I mean, honestly, we have Hellboy and Spider-Man and Batman and technically even Darkman all under the category of "superhero movie." They're all completely different. It's pretty hard to single one out and say "THIS DEFINES THE GREATNESS OF SUPERHERO MOVIES MORE THAN ALL THE REST"

So that's my thoughts on it. :3

jester747 wrote:Yeah, not gunna' lie, it was good, but I think it was majorly over-hyped.

I honestly can't fathom how so many people make the claim that it's the best super hero movie yet when Dark Night exists.

Because the Dark Knight is a rather dark depressing movie. I actually know people who dislike it and won't see it because of that.

So while I loved it, it's not the best superhero movie ever.

Chozon1 wrote:

jester747 wrote:Yeah, not gunna' lie, it was good, but I think it was majorly over-hyped.

I honestly can't fathom how so many people make the claim that it's the best super hero movie yet when Dark Night exists.

Because the Dark Knight is a rather dark depressing movie. I actually know people who dislike it and won't see it because of that.

So while I loved it, it's not the best superhero movie ever.

But, how does it being dark remove quality from the film?

jester747 wrote:

Chozon1 wrote:

jester747 wrote:Yeah, not gunna' lie, it was good, but I think it was majorly over-hyped.

I honestly can't fathom how so many people make the claim that it's the best super hero movie yet when Dark Night exists.

Because the Dark Knight is a rather dark depressing movie. I actually know people who dislike it and won't see it because of that.

So while I loved it, it's not the best superhero movie ever.

But, how does it being dark remove quality from the film?

Because Adam West.

jester747 wrote:

Chozon1 wrote:

jester747 wrote:Yeah, not gunna' lie, it was good, but I think it was majorly over-hyped.

I honestly can't fathom how so many people make the claim that it's the best super hero movie yet when Dark Night exists.

Because the Dark Knight is a rather dark depressing movie. I actually know people who dislike it and won't see it because of that.

So while I loved it, it's not the best superhero movie ever.

But, how does it being dark remove quality from the film?

Why would quality matter if you don't like it, or don't even see it?

Solid 1/4 inch titanium underpants would last you forever, practically. Yet you would hate wearing them.

Chozon1 wrote:
Solid 1/4 inch titanium underpants would last you forever, practically. Yet you would hate wearing them.

But...

that's like saying Lady Gaga is better than Theocracy because more people like Lady Gaga.

WE BOTH KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE CHOZON

WE BOTH KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE

jester747 wrote:

Chozon1 wrote:
Solid 1/4 inch titanium underpants would last you forever, practically. Yet you would hate wearing them.

But...

that's like saying Lady Gaga is better than Theocracy because more people like Lady Gaga.

WE BOTH KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE CHOZON

WE BOTH KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE

He... he makes a good point, Chozon my brotha.

Going by The Dark Knight's $1,001,921,825 gross, I don't know if it's entirely accurate to say that people don't like it. And... I mean... quality doesn't really hinge on how many people appreciate it. Granted, it's all in the eye of the beholder, but considering that people can be pretty stupid, I've never really bought into the idea that quality doesn't matter/doesn't exist if most people don't see it. Sometimes (and this applies to myself as well) they're just being dense. Some people won't be able to watch The Avengers because "it's not serious enough" or some hooplah. Some people won't be able to watch The Dark Knight because "it's too serious." I think the issue here is a lack of open-mindedness and not so much a fault of the story at hand. For instance, I think we can all agree that The Lord of the Rings (the books) is pretty dang dark, but also that it's high quality, regardless of how the masses treat it (which is something along the lines of nerd fodder, as far as I can tell). It's better than Twilight, which is less dark and depressing and more accessible. God knows why because I SURE DON'T.

Though The Avengers has already grossed as much as The Dark Knight within 19 days of being in theatres and DEAR GOD IT'S NOT EVEN FINISHED YET

jester747 wrote:But...

that's like saying Lady Gaga is better than Theocracy because more people like Lady Gaga.

WE BOTH KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE CHOZON

WE BOTH KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE

Do I? Really? Morally, sure. Lady Gag fails comparatively to Theocracy. But as I stand for art being subjective (artistically, mind you; separate issue from morally. And you know I don't apply it in a hippy metaphysical fashion. ) and up the heart (if I say 'in the eye of the beholder', as CK did, I can't help thinking of D&D), for me to claim Theocracy as superior music would be hypocritical of meh. I'd sooner pour vinegar into my eyes than listen to lady Gag, but if someone else adores her, then to them she is better than Theocracy. Even if all the fiber in my heart denies it and wishes to violently chainsaw it.

Same with Batman. To claim that it's a better movie based off the 'quality' ignores, in my eyes, the entire point of the thing as 'art', and makes me want to 'fart'. It implies an objective standard to which an artistic attempt must reach in order to be 'good' rather than a subjective one that I normally apply to movies, music, games, ETC. Which is the same as someone rejecting a painting because the brushstrokes don't line up correctly.

So I phrased it wrong earlier. Quality is nothing compared to whether or not you like the movie, I think (disagreeing with CK there, and likely a lot of people), so it is possible for people to not like the steamy pile of awesome that TDK is. It's also why most of the "ARTISTICALLY SUPERIOR MOVIES" mean...nothing to me. I've had to ponder this all day, which is why I've returned a wall of text.

Basically what I'm saying is that...I'm not saying what you think I'm saying, but I'm saying what I'm saying, which is...if peoples do not liek a movie, then it matters not whether or not I like it, or whether it's a 'good movie' by some wispy objective grading system, since they don't like it. And vice versa. Can't judge something like this objectively to be 'good' or 'bad' since to place objective standards on an piece of art is to be a ninny. Or something.

CountKrazy wrote:Going by The Dark Knight's $1,001,921,825 gross, I don't know if it's entirely accurate to say that people don't like it. And... I mean... quality doesn't really hinge on how many people appreciate it. Granted, it's all in the eye of the beholder, but considering that people can be pretty stupid, I've never really bought into the idea that quality doesn't matter/doesn't exist if most people don't see it. Sometimes (and this applies to myself as well) they're just being dense. Some people won't be able to watch The Avengers because "it's not serious enough" or some hooplah. Some people won't be able to watch The Dark Knight because "it's too serious." I think the issue here is a lack of open-mindedness and not so much a fault of the story at hand. For instance, I think we can all agree that The Lord of the Rings (the books) is pretty dang dark, but also that it's high quality, regardless of how the masses treat it (which is something along the lines of nerd fodder, as far as I can tell). It's better than Twilight, which is less dark and depressing and more accessible. God knows why because I SURE DON'T.

Though The Avengers has already grossed as much as The Dark Knight within 19 days of being in theatres and DEAR GOD IT'S NOT EVEN FINISHED YET

See above. Brain density, stupidity, ignorance, ETC, don't mean a thing, really, when it concerns artsy typpa stuff. For that matter, LOTR isn't really better than Twilight if you dislike LOTR. *shrugs* It burns, but I think it's the truth. Either art is subjective (artistically, again, as opposed to morally, or lackadaisically) and speaks to the individual, or art is objective and can be graded based on its parts. I will stand for the former until the pants of time drop and all is laid to burnination.

I never really considered LOTR to be dark, either. You can tell from the first chapter it ends happily, and it does have a happy ending. And I'm not just being contrary either. XD

Honestly... I don't think I really disagree with you. Actually, I pretty adamantly agree with you almost completely. I hate the idea that any one type of artistic production is fundamentally better than the other. But I'm also stuck on the other side that does believe there is an established measure of what's good technique and what's bad technique. That's probably the important distinction for me: art versus technique. Art is art whether it's made with good or bad technique, and that doesn't change it. I don't think that should change it. I've been emotionally affected on huge levels by complete junk. Even though I look back on it with disdain I would've rather had the emotional growth with that butt stupid show/movie/book/whatever than not. And that's what makes art what it is, right? Emotional involvement? Sincerity? Yeah, I'd agree with that.

But then I also agree that one of the following drawings is drawn really effing badly and the other is not:





Both are art, both are sincere. Neither one is better on an artistic level. I can appreciate the heart in both of them. But we're all lying to ourselves if we say they're on the same level in terms of technique. And I'm not meaning to pit the two artists against each other. I'm sure the second one has been drawing much... much longer than the first one. They could be equally as good someday. But for example's sake, there is good drawing and bad drawing, there is good filmmaking and bad filmmaking. It doesn't make for a loss of integrity... but it could be that one is better made than the other. In the end, though, I just want something I can connect with, and if it's not perfectly made, I don't care as long as it's a cool trip and made with sincerity. If it doesn't have sincerity and honesty to a personal vision, whether that vision is for The Avengers or The Dark Knight, I can't get into it. But the truth is that it gets my juices flowing so much stronger if that vision is translated with awesome technique. So yeah... art's a personal thing. Art house movies are no better than blockbuster movies and dramas are no better than comedies because everybody responds differently on a personal level. But if you pit a really freaking well-made, honest art house movie that virtually no one likes compared to a poorly executed, by-the-books blockbuster that people throw money at, I'll go for the art house movie every time. And vice versa.

But I go back to my original point that The Avengers is absolutely nothing like The Dark Knight and it's a mistake to compare them in technique and quality to begin with because it's apples and oranges SO THERE YOU GO.

...I hope some of that was relevant to what we're talking about. @__@

CountKrazy wrote:Honestly... I don't think I really disagree with you. Actually, I pretty adamantly agree with you almost completely. I hate the idea that any one type of artistic production is fundamentally better than the other. But I'm also stuck on the other side that does believe there is an established measure of what's good technique and what's bad technique. That's probably the important distinction for me: art versus technique. Art is art whether it's made with good or bad technique, and that doesn't change it. I don't think that should change it. I've been emotionally affected on huge levels by complete junk. Even though I look back on it with disdain I would've rather had the emotional growth with that butt stupid show/movie/book/whatever than not. And that's what makes art what it is, right? Emotional involvement? Sincerity? Yeah, I'd agree with that.

But then I also agree that one of the following drawings is drawn really effing badly and the other is not:

Which is placing an objective standard on the art, even if it is in technique only, and something I cannot do for conscience sake. For me, I could not look at those two drawings and say 'Dude. The first one is drawn terribly', if it was drawn in sincerity or whatever. It certainly wasn't drawn realistically, but what if it was actually what the artist wanted to draw? Is a painting with one brush stroke and 2 colors worth less than a time consuming landscape? Is a song with three chords and standard rhythm straight from the heart, worth less than a face-melting solo from the heart? Is the first drawing worth less because the drawer didn't use forced shading or realism, or...some other word, or give effeminate eyes? What I'm trying to say is...the second one may be more complex, and have more involvement, and have 'better' technique, but that doesn't make it better. Actually, I like the first more. XD

As an example of what I'm trying to say, the 'modern' art flavor was once considered bad (or lazy) technique too, until some guy, probably a crazy old guy, decided he liked it. Art, to me, is art. *shrugs again* Technique aside, it matters whether or not I like it and whether or not the creator tried to make something good or not rather than an objective standard it meets/fails to meet, technique or otherwise. I canna defend the lazy person who just like...sneezes onto a piece of canvas. But if someone sneezed on a canvas with feeling, it's different. XD I canna explain why, and I won't bother to try. Just the way I is. If, as you sez,

CountKrazy wrote:'ve been emotionally affected on huge levels by complete junk. Even though I look back on it with disdain I would've rather had the emotional growth with that butt stupid show/movie/book/whatever than not. And that's what makes art what it is, right?

Why bother to even try to judge on technique? Sure, it *might* reach you easier, but there's no guarantee. Why would it even matter? Books others would laugh at and scorn for being badly written, I'll likely love until I get dead'd. XD

I seem to get into this argument a lot. Poo, I say. I know people who would place more value over their children's scribbles than Mikey's David. And that makes meh happeh. So...I could agree (if he/she actually was) that the first artist was less experienced, but could not for the life of me say why it matters. I couldn't say it was drawn badly at all, actually. XD The 'amazing, exquisite' works of art in the modern world tend to annoy me, for that matter, masters of technique aside. So for me, there isn't "Good writing" and "bad writing" and "good filming" and "bad filming" but whether or not I like the book or movie.

CountKrazy wrote:But I go back to my original point that The Avengers is absolutely nothing like The Dark Knight and it's a mistake to compare them in technique and quality to begin with because it's apples and oranges SO THERE YOU GO.

They're both superhero movies. XD

This is why sometimes I hate art


EDIT: no, I guess I mean discussion on art. Just suffice to say that there is indeed crap art

We knew that by looking at YOUR FACE. >.>



But yeah, there's no denying that. I never said that, and I never would. I happen to be annoyed by paintings containing naked peoples and country farm houses, and consider them bad art. Same with vapid pop songs, a lourd of most modern music, art house movies (sorry CK. :\ They tend to grate on my nerves. XD Remember that Strongbad clip I showed you?), and video games that use women as attractants and violence for laughs. I too, hate discussions on art.

I'm just saying that there is no real objective standard for 'good' art (in the artistic sense, rather than a moral one) and creating one is ninnyish. Why didn't I just say that? I didn't want to (And still don't) make anyone think I was calling them a ninny (which I'm nawt), and if you say things that bluntly on teh webs, you get farted on for some reason. In fact, I'd probably agree with CK's last post in some ways if I apply it to video games or movies, I've just been annoyed by one to many superior poops who try to tell me why a movie is 'bad' because of 'BLAHBLEHBALL' reasons, and annoying the point of it, or the fun of it, or any other metaphysical aspect, that I have a knee-jerk rebellion to stuff like this (not, mind you, that CK is being a superior poop).

Which leads to Batman: Calling it a good movie is based upon subjective, rather than objective, standards and thus the Avengers can easily be a better movie.

Chozon1 wrote:
Do I? Really? Morally, sure. Lady Gag fails comparatively to Theocracy. But as I stand for art being subjective (artistically, mind you; separate issue from morally. And you know I don't apply it in a hippy metaphysical fashion. ) and up the heart (if I say 'in the eye of the beholder', as CK did, I can't help thinking of D&D), for me to claim Theocracy as superior music would be hypocritical of meh. I'd sooner pour vinegar into my eyes than listen to lady Gag, but if someone else adores her, then to them she is better than Theocracy. Even if all the fiber in my heart denies it and wishes to violently chainsaw it.

Same with Batman. To claim that it's a better movie based off the 'quality' ignores, in my eyes, the entire point of the thing as 'art', and makes me want to 'fart'. It implies an objective standard to which an artistic attempt must reach in order to be 'good' rather than a subjective one that I normally apply to movies, music, games, ETC. Which is the same as someone rejecting a painting because the brushstrokes don't line up correctly.

So I phrased it wrong earlier. Quality is nothing compared to whether or not you like the movie, I think (disagreeing with CK there, and likely a lot of people), so it is possible for people to not like the steamy pile of awesome that TDK is. It's also why most of the "ARTISTICALLY SUPERIOR MOVIES" mean...nothing to me. I've had to ponder this all day, which is why I've returned a wall of text.

Basically what I'm saying is that...I'm not saying what you think I'm saying, but I'm saying what I'm saying, which is...if peoples do not liek a movie, then it matters not whether or not I like it, or whether it's a 'good movie' by some wispy objective grading system, since they don't like it. And vice versa. Can't judge something like this objectively to be 'good' or 'bad' since to place objective standards on an piece of art is to be a ninny. Or something.

But.

I never said that The Dark Night was better. I said that I was frustrated that so many people were calling The Avengers better than the Dark Night.


And to be fair, you kind of contradict yourself.

So while I loved it, it's not the best superhero movie ever.

After that entire schpeel about how you can't judge movies objectively, you just said outright that The Dark Night isn't the best, under the pretense that lots of people don't like it.

Dewd.

Nah, we're cool, Chozon. I really do see where you're coming from and I definitely agree with some of it. Perhaps art class made me a bit too stringent on the whole thing, but I can't say that I really mind because I can kind of be a perfectionist and I think it makes me a better artist. The downside is that sometimes I can be a little TOO exact in what I view as good and bad art.

Honestly, I do rather enjoy hashing out opinions on this kind of thing because that's what we did in school. I'm not fond of when they turn into shooting arrows back and forth at each other, but the question of "what is art" is an age old one and I don't mind going around the block on it once in a while. Usually I come out of it seeing something I hadn't seen before.

Perhaps this Banksy graffiti is relevant: