User talk:Ooooooooo/Old stupid stuff

I think Ben is a bit of idiot to be honest. He doesn't know when to stop talking. Then when he does he stares off into the middle distance and daydreams. Ooooooooo 12:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a bit unfair. He does try to listen to other people but sometimes people say such boring things, and that is not his fault. Give him a break. Ooooooooo 12:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is usually right when he is talking about architects. You see, his point was that if you got rid of all the architects, you could still build new houses and other buildings. There are plenty of people (mostly civil engineers) who have the skills (indeed, they are almost over skilled) to adapt existing designs to new physical situations, and there are so many designs for houses, offices etc. you might argue that the world wouldn't be much worse if we never had a new design for a house. However, without people who study film, acting and so on, it would not be possible to make new films - or at least, you could, but they would be largely the same as previous ones, and therefore give little benefit to humanity - there would be no point. Examples of film makers who have formally studied film one way or another before they became film makers: Quentin Tarantino, Mike Leigh, George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, Lars von Trier, Paul Verhoeven. David Lynch and Ridley Scott both studied arts/design which fed heavily into their film-making. Steven Spielberg has an interesting history of trying to get film-related qualifications but failing for various reasons. A notable exception is Stanley Kubrick, who hated education. These are the most successful directors and Ben thinks that most of the more "independent" film makers are even more likely to have formally studied film. Of course, the basis for any new film is a new script/story, and sometimes the director does not write the screenplay, but there is often a close relationship between the two. Screenplay writers are probably only slightly less likely to have studied film than directors. I think this all points to the fact that film studies and similar courses are very important in producing new films.

The basic principle is that a building performs a function outside being creatively/aesthetically novel, and this is its principle function. I don't care if my house is the same as next door's house, as long as it keeps me warm and dry and efficiently transmits noise from the flats above and below. However, I would not want to see a completely identical remake of an existing film. This has been done of course, with Psycho, but it was critically hailed with calls of "what's the point?" and "this is shit" IMDB. Other remakes are often similarly pointless (Poseidon, Alfie, Get Carter). Sometimes it is worth it because advances in special effects technology means the remake can be a significant improvement in that respect (Superman, King Kong, The King and I, Kingpin, King Ralph, The Lion King).

Anyway this is basically what Ben thinks on this particular issue. Ooooooooo 13:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ben, were he to think about it a bit more, would add that, of course, you can write and make a new film without studying film. His experience of trying to do so in his previous jobs in the film industry, and his acquaintance with others who have tried to do the same, indicates that the results are usually quite poor. Imagine a YouTube clip, but extended to 90 minutes. Ooooooooo 13:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]