Normally I wouldn’t post a thread about a movie on this form. But, I saw 2012 on DVD last night and had to say something about it. It’s probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It was so bad that I got angry that it wouldn’t hurry up and be over. So, you have been warned.
the movie can be summed up with the following sentence:
“John Cusack barely escaping shit”
C’mon man, those director’s have always sucked. Why? All of their movies are too similar.
Independence Day
the ultra shitty American remake of Godzilla
and now 2012.
I just can’t stand their movies…
On another note, Legendary Pictures just announced their remaking Godzilla in 2012, hopefully it’ll be good.
It’s funny. Just one look at the film, the poster design, the players, the title and the brief synopsis… and I know it’s going to be shit.
2012 was one of those. As was Avatar. As was virtually everything else out there.
Had a massive discussion with Peligro recently regarding this. These films are trash. They stand for nothing. Just technical wizardry, cool explosions, and people better looking and ‘cooler’ than you, me or anyone else watching the film having sex and living happily ever after.
It’s a reflection of the times. Art/film/music whatever that just looks pretty and stands for nothing reflects the generally hollow nature of the ‘culture’ from which it is spawned.
Go back 50 years. I mentioned watching ‘On the Waterfront’. To this day, the message is still pertinent, and yet it was a great commentary and reflection of the times. It was a film that did something. Even ‘frivolous’ shit like ‘Some Like it Hot’ provided some insight into the social norms, trends, culture of the time.
And now?
Sad. At least there are some people out there still just doing their own thing, making good music and movies in the face of all this trash.
I thought District 9 was pretty good. There is still some hope.
Avatar was completely abysmal although getting high and watching that shit in 3d was quite an experience.
Re avatar: I intended to go and do that at Imax.
But… no time. [mad]
Meh, listening to Merzbow is a good substitute for that!
I agree on the shittiness of these films (just saw Clash of the Titans 3D… not only was there no actual clashing of titans, the film was so lame it was painful), though I disagree about Avatar. I loved it and it was not as mindless as the rest, albeit projected through a lame Cameron “let’s party till dawn!” kind of way. All I’ll say more in defence of Avatar is: blue vagina.
Why was the world blowing up in this movie?
Aliens?
I’ll never watch it, so spoil away.
Avatar is actually more or less OK as a simple action movie, even though the storytelling is clearly designed with special effects in mind. But its not THAT bad, I mean, the story is passable and it doesnt contain the huge gaping plot holes that a blockbuster of its caliber usually does.
But what I really hate about it is actually the preachy eco-mentalist bullshit. Im so fed up with people shoving their ‘eco-friendly’ agenda down my throat. I was honestly hoping that the humans would kill all those annoying blue monkeys and was highly disappointed with the lame human defeat at the end.
It’s a reflection of the times. Art/film/music whatever that just looks pretty and stands for nothing reflects the generally hollow nature of the ‘culture’ from which it is spawned.
So you concede that this shitty art and music is an accurate reflection of “the times” as was the art you mentioned admiring of its own time. Which means you and Peligro just hate, well …“the times”. You can’t blame the art for being accurate right?
For the record I agree with you to a degree. I think after the age of reality television, the internet etc. the world and humanity has become really transparent and lost its mystique. The imagination is dulled because all the weird shit in our heads is right in front of us in shitty CGI and it’s just the same stories over and over but more realistic.
Music is largely a backdrop for image, and more important PERSONAS which is what is really being sold. Something like Lady Gaga is a cult of personality. You buy her album and you buy a pretend lifestyle and aura you can briefly escape into.
With facebook/personal myspace, people us it as a vehicle to brand themselves without being aware that’s what they’re doing.
I think the thing that really seems to be irking you guys though has more to do with art functionality vs deeper meaning/advanced art. Advertising. CGI blockbuster movies, songs in commercials, pop music, is functional art, and a lot more culturally relevant and reflective of the times sometimes than the deeper shit could be.
I mean Britney Spears is more subversive than Burzum because millions of dumb teenagers listen to her record and may be moved to party, get fucked up, do drugs, be a slut vs a handful of losers in their bedroom worshipping Satan and talking about burning a church.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the Renaissance and how artists were supposed to be commercially successful and now you have all these “misunderstood” brooding artists types who refuse to cater to the mainstream because they want to make “pure” art based on this starving artist concept that is really relatively new.
Well if you don’t want to cater to the majority and make functional artwork, or wrap your advanced/more complex art in a shiny sexy package to fool people into liking it, then no one’s going to care except for the people around you who understand what you’re doing.
It’s like I see ex members of Ministry and their complete inability to market themselves and they all seem to have this “pure” aesthetic where it’s like “I’m just a musician” and now you have to be more. You have to be a Renaissance man, using photoshop, web design, video. graphics, etc. to create packaging for your art to sell it to people more effectively. The music doesn’t necessarily need to change, but the packaging does.
Same with ex members of Marilyn Manson (I’m just using these 2 as examples because they are near and dear to me). I mean these guys are in the fold for years and you think they would have made some attempt to market themselves individually or build some kind of relationship with their fans out from under the cult of personality of “Marilyn Manson” the individual. But no. They ride the coat tails of someone who realized how to market himself and use image effectively, whose use of imagery and packaging sold a product that was not very mainstream to the mainstream.
But they still seem to don’t understand that the imagery and packaging was crucial to their success. So they just rely on their musical skills alone to sell and it gets them absolutely nowhere.
In short: Have fun playing with your bongos in the dirt (Frank Zappa “Flower Punk”) if you’re going to limit yourself to one medium (music). As a modern artist, you need to combine the different tools at your disposal to sell a whole package if you want to make money.
I like how you managed to work Marilyn Manson into a thread about an end of the world special effects film starring John Cusack.
I thought that was clever. You must really like that guy to keep bringing him up everything 15 minutes.
So this 2012 fandango is about sunspots frying the earth from the inside causing, what, tidal waves and earth quakes bringing about the end of mankind as we know it except for a bunch of heroic survivors (is there nothing that Cusack boy can’t do!?!?!?) who cry and hug each other alot and whose main claim to fame here is that they don’t die?!!?!?
Does Cusack play a red blooded all American boy next door type who grew up amongst the wheat fields of Nebraska? Is there a montage showing us what a perfect speciman of humanity he is and how he loves to throw baseball with his son whom he loves unconditionally? Did he lose his wife (whom he also loved unconditionally) during childbirth and reminds us tearfully on at least half a dozen occasions about how much he misses her? At some point does he learn to fly a plane on the spot and manages to steer through tidal waves and earthquakes and blizzards to safety whilst stirring and overtly emotional music plays in the background? Does a Celine Dion song somehow get worked into this? Is there the odd bit of ‘cute’ humour here and there?
Is the film better when one is shitfaced?
Call me ‘artsy’ and ‘snobby’ I don’t care, but if this is the kind of slop that audiences are slurping up these days then they can all get fucked.
So you concede that this shitty art and music is an accurate reflection of “the times” as was the art you mentioned admiring of its own time. Which means you and Peligro just hate, well …“the times”. You can’t blame the art for being accurate right?
I would agree with you; it’s accurate, sure. That was my point to begin with. What you seem to have missed is that insofar as it may reflect the prevailing social norms/phenomena of the times, that doesn’t exactly mean it stands for much; ie: there is no social commentary of any worth. Look at some of the films pre-1990, and you hard works of art that really stood for something and entailed a lasting social commentary that remains pertinent in the many years that followed it. The films of today seem to lack that substance. So, that doesn’t qualify it as anything worthwhile in my eyes. It really doesn’t.
And as for the times, I don’t exactly hate them, but in Australia at the very least, I and many others I would assume, see a lot of things that are rather… erm… bothersome. But I will say this much; I’m pretty optimistic about the future, perhaps more than most. For a range of reasons, which are too long to go through.
Music is largely a backdrop for image, and more important PERSONAS which is what is really being sold. Something like Lady Gaga is a cult of personality. You buy her album and you buy a pretend lifestyle and aura you can briefly escape into.
With facebook/personal myspace, people us it as a vehicle to brand themselves without being aware that’s what they’re doing.
Look, you’re not wrong at all. If people want to buy into that, that’s perfectly fine. Vapid little dreams of pretend millionaire lifestyles and partying and whatever have been around since the 50s… ‘Diamonds are a girl’s best friend’? But, at the same time, there was some subversion within those lyrics that went beyond saying ‘let me ride yer disco stick’ or whatever. There was some irony which undercut it, however subtly, but it was there if you looked hard enough.
The more and more music has been commodified after all the good people who started record labels out of their passion for music and just signed artists because they liked them died and had their businesses bought by suits from multinational companies with little interest in music… the less it’s had to say, or stand for.
I mean Britney Spears is more subversive than Burzum because millions of dumb teenagers listen to her record and may be moved to party, get fucked up, do drugs, be a slut vs a handful of losers in their bedroom worshipping Satan and talking about burning a church.
And yeah, you could definitely say it’s more subversive… but like I said, it stands for nothing. It disintegrates society. It’s a mutually reciprocal relation. Art degrading society degrading art degrading… ya dig? A sad reflection of the times. And this is one of the many things I see wrong with this place today. It’s a rare breed of person that actually keeps their heads above it.
Even Mike Patton and his cronies seem fucking unable to… [:/]
I think the thing that really seems to be irking you guys though has more to do with art functionality vs deeper meaning/advanced art. Advertising. CGI blockbuster movies, songs in commercials, pop music, is functional art, and a lot more culturally relevant and reflective of the times sometimes than the deeper shit could be.
Don’t get me wrong, I like special effects. I like fun. I saw Kick Ass last night; that was a lot of fun. And surprisingly, I think it had a pretty good message there. That was a pretty good reflection of the times; kid sets up a myspace, is a hero on the internet, but unlike most people these days… actually lives out his persona. Pretty basic, but not bad at all.
You’re sort of missing my point, no offence. I’m not saying the art of today is not reflecting the times; it is. But that doesn’t make it anything completely worthwhile, because like a lot of people today… they don’t really stand for much. None of it does. It’s just whiz bang superficial entertainment. Back to Kick Ass… I’ve gotta say, the way it pinpointed people just seeing crime, attacks, murders, whatever and just turning a blind eye was pretty refreshing. It’s so fucking common today. The Western neo-liberal principles of individual self-enterprise have pretty much taken precedence over selfless behaviour and genuine concern for your fellow man.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the Renaissance and how artists were supposed to be commercially successful and now you have all these “misunderstood” brooding artists types who refuse to cater to the mainstream because they want to make “pure” art based on this starving artist concept that is really relatively new.
Well if you don’t want to cater to the majority and make functional artwork, or wrap your advanced/more complex art in a shiny sexy package to fool people into liking it, then no one’s going to care except for the people around you who understand what you’re doing.
It’s like I see ex members of Ministry and their complete inability to market themselves and they all seem to have this “pure” aesthetic where it’s like “I’m just a musician” and now you have to be more. You have to be a Renaissance man, using photoshop, web design, video. graphics, etc. to create packaging for your art to sell it to people more effectively. The music doesn’t necessarily need to change, but the packaging does.
Okay, I think yer argument is a bit skewed here.
The Renaissance did entail a lot of artists being commissioned to do works for the nobility, religious hierarchy, etc.
But I went to the art gallery in Melbourne yesterday for the hell of it. I looked at all the Rennaisance works for free. And I was struck by the level of detail, beauty and general artistic integrity that came with it.
Yes, these works were commissioned. Yes, they did appeal to the status quo. But every artist had their own individual touch.
It is the reason you can tell the difference between a Caravaggio and a Rembrandt.
Yet today, if you would like to outline the differences between Ke$ha and Lady Gaga… or Madonna 20 years earlier for that matter… you’d be pretty hard pressed to find any distinctions.
My point is; the mass commodification of music/art/film today has rendered only the image to be of any ‘relevance’; and given it’s essentially been commodified to fit in line with the status quo, it’s all rather indistinguishable. It stands for very little.
And yet you look at those Renaissance works… the level of work that went into them signified a level of devotion on part of the artist you’d be hard pressed to find today. Whether commissioned or not, the religious works in particular and the workmanship I noted with them made me realise that something must have resonated within the artist about those religious stories/figures to have put that level of craftsmanship into them.
You can look at that and feel genuinely overwhelmed.
Or, you can listen to Lady Gaga talk about bluffing with her muffin and… feel… not… a single… thing. You’re a robot. You giggle. Autistic society and ‘social networking’ at it’s ‘finest’.
Your talk about packaging and appealing to the mainstream makes sense, but I think that mentality is what’s making music less interesting. Yes, you could do all that, and just blend into the crowd and stand for nothing.
Or, you could blaze yer own trail, create something unique, and make some music which is going to last beyond current trends and what’s in/out with the cool kids.
I don’t see how anyone could be satisfied making ‘music’ they don’t even like to appeal to other people. That’s just lame. Go and do that. I’d rather have my fun doing it in my own time, on my own terms, no matter how small scale. Fuck the packaging; what you hear is what you get.
You watch. Give her 5 years, not even, and Lady Gaga, Ke$ha, et al will be another Macy Gray, Ms Dynamite, Natalie Imbruglia, whatever.
And yes, I pretty much agreed with everything Peligro had to say, and followed you until you mentioned Manson. For every time you mention Manson, I’m going to mention Elvis Presley to counterbalance it.
Maybe we missed eachother’s points.
I wasn’t saying this shit is on par with Renaissance work or brilliant. I don’t listen to Lady Gaga. I think her videos are really solid productions and she has done some cool shit, visually mostly. Yes the lyrics are silly and chilldish but I think you’re looking at it from a bit of a one-dimensional perspective. Yeah you could easily point out dissimilarities between her and Ke$ha and Pink and Beyonce that would distinguish them from one another. That doesn’t mean I’m a fan.
Another negative quality can be the forced filtering of the deluge of media crap that hits us every day, so we have a tendency to automatically bash something and completely disregard it without looking a bit more closely at it because there are so many other things that merit our attention.
But I’m saying this kind of big production multi-media blitz to the sense that is what these people are really about which makes them successful, is cool to me in principle. That a modern artist is able to merge all these different strands of media by themselves if they really dedicate themselves to the task.
I don’t make music to appeal to people I wasn’t talking about that either. My point is this idea is cool and a lot more interesting things can be done with it than these people are when they do things that appear to you and me as well superficial and hollow. It does reflect some aspect of the times culturally, and it does feed back into the culture and degrade it further on some levels.
I didn’t say it was good or bad right or wrong just pointing out my thoughts.
And yes, I pretty much agreed with everything Peligro had to say, and followed you until you mentioned Manson. For every time you mention Manson, I’m going to mention Elvis Presley to counterbalance it.
You could have saved yourself a whole lot of time and effort and just typed this:
And yeah, you could definitely say it’s more subversive… but like I said, it stands for nothing. It disintegrates society. It’s a mutually reciprocal relation. Art degrading society degrading art degrading… ya dig? A sad reflection of the times.
“It stands for nothing”. It is ‘art’ for the sake of celebrity. It serves no other purpose other than to fuel the mechanics of corporate industry. It’s not even ‘created’ by artists but by corporate entities, coked up suit and tie guys drunk on pussy. It stinks to high heaven. There IS no art - there is no desire to create. They peddle pop smut in a box for 13 year old girls to masturbate over. They rent people lives for limited periods of time and then dispose of them when they can find no more use for them. I find nothing stimulating or creative about the entire process. Any artistic medium that is worth it’s salt doesn’t ‘hone in’ on a particular demographic and saturate it.
What is Lady Gaga going to be remembered for in 30 years time.? Other, other than the fact that she was in the tabloids a bit and made enough money to build a small city.
But then again some folks like cream on their pie and some don’t - I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. I’m just thankful that there are individuals out there who can provide an alternative to the garbage.
You watch. Give her 5 years, not even, and Lady Gaga, Ke$ha, et al will be another Macy Gray, Ms Dynamite, Natalie Imbruglia, whatever.
Oh!! Oh!! What about that Neighbours girl, Holly Valance??? She was big with the kids, wasn’t she? I’d pay to see her nude. But that’s what it’s all about right? I mean…really. Ninety per cent of it’s just people we’d like to see nude. That’s the only ‘art’ involved if you can call it that. These days people are ‘famous’ beause while they’re still young and pretty, we all want to see them nude. Like that Harry Potter girl - who wouldn’t want to see her in the buff??
Aaaah the cult of celebrity - how fickle you are!
Nah, I think Gaga will still be around in five years. I mean, after all the arguments of people instantly forgetting pop stars, Britney and Christina are still pretty big as is Madonna and Kylie. I’d say the arena of pop superstardom is actually one of the more longer lived “star lifespans” in music. I mean, Ministry were famous for what, a year?
Nah, I think Gaga will still be around in five years. I mean, after all the arguments of people instantly forgetting pop stars, Britney and Christina are still pretty big as is Madonna and Kylie. I’d say the arena of pop superstardom is actually one of the more longer lived “star lifespans” in music. I mean, Ministry were famous for what, a year?
Yeah seriously. If you’re going to bash something at least be realistic. Of course she’ll be around…
Disagree;
Britney is remembered for everything that is wrong with music, if at all, anything to do with music. She shaves her head, loses her shit, whatever. She just happens to have been a singer once upon a time.
Gaga will be the same. The hype will die, the ideas will start to run out, and the only way they keep their names in the headlines is by doing something stupid.
Cult of celebrity has surpassed any consideration for any bona fide talent. Any idiot can set a trend; making something that’s going to last and still have the same relevance in the years to come seems to be a dying art.
I still haven’t heard a single Lady Gaga song. And I’m not saying that to be ‘different’ or to show how resistant I am to the mainstream - I think that’s more a reflection of how caught up I am in my own little universe.
And to reiterate - any idiot with a gym membership card can flaunt a good body on television. There’s no ‘genius’ involved. If I had 5 million bucks to spend on advertising I could turn any number of cutesy teen honeys into megastars.
However I could not guarantee that said starlet would die submersed in a bathtub full of coke or be arrested holding up a liquor store ten years after their use by date had run out.
Lady Gaga won’t disappear just yet. I would like if she did but she’s too marketable. Why? Because she is pure and utter kitcsh. She’s a gay icon and she permits certain people to indulge in stuff that is so vacuous they could cease to exist out of sheer unimportance. She is death by colour, shapes and poses. But ultimately she’s a talking point: does she have a cock? etc etc. She may fade away, she may not. I don’t care. The only thing that aggravates me is that some believe her to be a true musical artist. She’s not. She’s a cereal box.