Gerald Barrett25 said:I don't really count guys like Stephen King or Chuck Palahniuk as actual literature.
Artistic elitism. It’s such a joke.
This is art. That? Not even close.Keep Cthulhu out of this if we want to stick to an objective definition of art—one that doesn't just trample over everything in its path by leaning on subjective feelings. That'd be too easy.
Look, you clearly aren't a fan of Stephen King—fine. There's no denying he’s a writer and an artist, but let's get one thing straight: artists aren't untouchable gods, and art isn't just some "whatever you feel like" subjective mess.
Alright. Art, huh... man, we could go in circles on that one forever. Honestly, it all just comes down to what era you're living in, don't you think?
Richard Howard2 is basically the perfect example of this. It’s not just his constant "The end is so extremely fucking nigh!" screaming—it’s that he actually can't stand the whole artistic direction of the movie. Look, that's fine. He doesn't have to like it. But he refuses to even acknowledge it as a legitimate style of art. Probably because, for an agnostic like him, "art" is just something they pretend exists to feel better about themselves. 🙄Look, on the other hand, you can't really argue with the history there. It’s always been the same old story—one group picks a fight with a third party just to stay ahead. It's a cycle. 🙂 Even when you're looking at the same movement—take the whole Camus vs Sartre debate, for example.
I think a solid definition of art boils down to this: it’s whatever is created specifically to kickstart the human spirit. To me, the absolute best kind of art is the stuff that hits you where it counts—something that stirs up both your senses and your deepest emotions at the same time.
(FYI,
The human spirit. It’s one of those heavy concepts people love to toss around when they want to sound deep, but honestly? Most of the time, it’s just about grit. It’s that stubborn, irrational refusal to stay down when life tries to kick your teeth in. You see it in movies, sure—some hero standing against impossible odds—but in the real world, it’s much messier. It’s less about cinematic glory and more about just getting up the next morning when everything feels like a total wreck. It's that raw, unpolished drive to keep moving, even when there's no logical reason to bother. It’s basically the one concept that lets me wrap my head around both the logic and the raw emotion of it all.
Again, the definition is pretty weak. Depending on how you look at it, it ends up covering everything from sports to basically whatever else you want to throw in there. Anyone got a better way to define this?
Bearing that in mind, art can't—and honestly, shouldn't—just be a playground for pure subjectivity. Sure, when you're pushing boundaries, things get messy. But look, whether a piece of work is actually good or just garbage? That’s totally up for debate. We can argue about taste all day long if we want to. My point is, we really need to nail down what we even mean by "art" before we start these endless arguments. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels and getting nowhere. 😬
Richard Howard2 said:Transformers is just gonna be bigger, faster, and better. Expect more explosions, way more slow-mo, and enough photorealistic detail to make you actually believe the physics aren't totally broken.
What's the problem? Art has never worked quite like this before.
...
Hold up, wait a second...
Everything has to move faster. Higher volumes, brighter lights, records being shattered left and right, and an endless stream of weird, unsettling clips flooding YouTube—but why? Because the money has to keep piling up. That’s not even the main driver; it’s just the side effect. Once we smashed through every technical barrier of "how to make things happen," once there wasn't a single cinematic hurdle left to clear, we just landed in this void of total nonsense. Now, all we can do is keep ramping up the speed, desperately sprinting through the chaos just so we don't accidentally run face-first into "The Reason."
Oh, really? Like painting—which went from simple beginnings to these hyper-realistic visions—never actually had a revolution? Cubism never happened. Jewish conspiracy, no doubt.
The reason is right under your nose, but it's the one thing you refuse to admit. It's that artistic elitism I was talking about.
The 20th century should have effectively been the end of humanity—two world wars, a Cold War, the death of art, the total collapse of moral order... and yet, we're still standing. Actually, we're still evolving—we haven't managed to wipe ourselves out just yet. Not saying we won't (there's plenty of time), but keep in mind that progress brings changes that irreversibly shift the landscape before the status quo can regain control (that thing you're panicking about—don't worry, it scares me too). Every time we think we're done for, things flip and it turns out we learned something new from the chaos. Best part is, this time we aren't even falling; we reflexively resort to talking about death (art, family, the neighbors of Matilda). We're still kickin', mate.
Watched Pirates of the Caribbean 3 yesterday and I was stoked. They take themselves even less seriously than the last one and they're even more over-the-top—exactly what I expected from them 🙂 Pure nonsense galore.
Also, saw the trailer for Die Hard 4.0 and I'm definitely hitting the theater for that 😬
'Omg, you took out that helicopter with a car!'
'I was outta bullets.'
😬
Aah, brings me back to the days of Rambo 😁
No, the movie isn't going to be some philosophical treatise. No, I'm not going to enroll in Police Academy after watching it. It'll most likely just be funny and ridiculous. And I like 'em that way 🙂 I like them engaging, heavy, and ambiguous. Honestly, I don't care what they are—as long as they entertain me and fulfill me.
Now, I'll be fulfilled if I'm entertained. Doesn't always work the other way around.
Look, I'm an existentialist and an angst-ridden emo kid at heart. I fight the meaninglessness of existence and the absurdity of daily life with both types of movies, but primarily, I need those Pirates films that don't take themselves seriously and are ready to entertain me exactly how I want. They put me in that specific headspace, they inspire me, and they spark creativity because I feel like a kid again with a bucket of Legos—bright, fun pieces I can use to build a bunch of incredibly stupid stuff and just enjoy it.
The Python fans, despite being bullied all over the internet, are the perfect example of the kind of fulfillment and entertainment I’m talking about. They make me laugh, but they also highlight the absurdity (*Camus vs Sartre* style, where reality points a finger at me and laughs) that I'm already aware of. And I like that.
The Pirates franchise only truly hit what it was supposed to be from the start with the third one—a total over-the-top funfest. The first one still had some pretensions to realism, but bah to that, I say! Bah! They work much better as lighthearted, self-deprecating fun. In the third one, they built this whole unique setting that is incredibly—god, how many times am I gonna say this—fun, and obviously, it makes zero sense to a rational brain 😬 (and that's just a figure of speech, FYI)
The geek subculture, which I proudly belong to, thrives on movies like this. Rightly so. They capture everything that's good about geekdom—just pure, unadulterated fun.
Don't worry about a new artistic direction destroying film—it'll just be replaced by another, which will, in turn, be replaced by a new one.
FYI, I don't love The Terminator 2. If I watched it again now, and I probably should, I'm sure I'd love it, but to me, The Terminator 1 was the absolute king as a kid—a bone-chilling thriller. You've got this unstoppable cyborg from the future coming for you and you have zero chance. All you can do is run, run, and then run some more. In the sequel, you're being chased by an unstoppable cyborg from the future again, but now he's made of liquid metal and driving a massive truck. Does that premise sound reminiscent of something to you?
Growing up, that was such a huge turn-off for me, which is pretty ironic since the movie itself was actually solid. I just miss that raw tension you get from the first one, is all.
Or maybe they're just out in the woods somewhere.
