PT RYL: PT Social Thread - The First Annual RYL Awards (name pending)(TM) Day 5!!

I just want to thank you for including the Artemision Zeus/Poseidon.

 

oh no problem ... here's another one of my pre-Christian faves:

 

Oh look i'm having art history flashbacks

 

^uh oh...sounds like you had a sub-par teacher...(i hope not, tho!)

 

I saw an episode of Family Guy once years ago and Brian said (and it's safe to assume any character Seth McFarlane voices is his mouthpiece if it's a "teaching" moment and not played for laughs, or actually the entire show for that matter, because he co-writes I think) something to the effect of: all religion gave us is bad gospel music. And as much as I appreciate the man's appreciation for big band and recognize his political savvy, this came across to me as a distinctly backward opinion. If American folk and bluegrass is his bugbear, that's one thing, but what about Bach's sacred organ works? Those are also very religious. Does he hate that too, just for that reason? You can disagree with something, even fundamentally, and still acknowledge it's not all bad.

Case and point: me with Family Guy.

 

Well art history 1 was ok, a bit dull, may have fallen asleep in class, but it was still cool to learn all that stuff. Art history 2 was an LSD trip that I'm trying to forget.

 

SBF2 spoilers

Spoiler

So anyone think Rey's Parents are Del and Iden?? Don't see how she got force powers though..

 

I never took art history. I took music lit instead. Really, I wanted to take introduction to film, but I don't regret opting for the music course.

 

I was forced to take art history ( art major and all ) but I did take a music history course as an elective and it was pretty cool. We mostly just listened to music in class and that was it

 

i've never seen even one ep of Family Guy (yes, yes, I know) and know very little of Seth McFarlane, but yes, i would have to disagree with him there...like i said, i'm pretty much an atheist but there are SO many religiously rooted works of art, lit, and and music that I adore...

and yes, the works of Bach alone are enough to refute McFarlane I defy anyone of any belief (or non-belief) system to listen to the St. Matthew Passion with an open mind/heart and not be deeply moved,,,(on a sheer musical level--not talking about the meaning of the text.)

edit: also, if the human race survives another 400 years....humans will still know Bach. Seth McFarlane...I'm not so sure

 

We had to write a freaking paper, analyzing a song.

I chose Africa by Toto.

 

Well that's going to be in my head for the next 24 hours now.

 

Pensivia that's pretty funny actually because I'm the opposite I think. I'm very much a Christian (Faith and Theology define who I am as a person) and a lot of Christian art leaves me cold

interesting how we can observe things differently

 

I have Rosanna stuck in my head now. I don't know if that's better or worse.

 

Definitely worse.

 

I already got bad taste. I might as well own it.

 

Lol I've never heard that song before

But we did have to do a small presentation on a song, which wasn't too bad, besides that I can't present anything to save my life. I did Little Talks by Of Monsters And Men

 

Well, okay, I guess.

Talk about a run-amok franchise. So much of the same stuff over and over again, yet so weirdly unrecognizable. To be fair, though, it started with Spielberg himself all the way back in 1997 with, in my opinion, his worst feature length film, The Lost World. Its 1993 predecessor was the director's inspired wonderment still firmly supported by a core that was Crichton's intellectual substance. But this first sequel was just Spielberg channeling obvious disinterest into a series of cynical gestures. The movie's other big problem? It doesn't have a story. Seriously. A plot, a thin narrative of empty set-pieces and obnoxious protagonists, but no actual story. The movie is quite literally about nothing. Jurassic Park III kinda evened out with a little more purpose and some decent schlock-spectacle but the franchise by that point was already long routine. Then came the soft reboot years later with Jurassic World, exaggerating dopier proclivities of the previous two installments to Cormanesque levels; no joke, a stock/wisecracking toy hero, sinister military schemes, motorcycles 'n' raptors, T-Rex vs. Indominus mutant etc. could've just as easily fit in with the script for Carnosaur or any of its sequels. The original Jurassic Park is a fantastical thinking-man's science adventure. Everything after has just been "dinosaur action movies".

Now this... I honestly don't know. What is this movie, exactly? It has "Jurassic" in the title and, oh look, there's a ceremonial Jeff Goldblum quoting Ian Malcolm lines. Beyond that however the trailer indicates a movie with zero identity of its own other than bigger and louder dino-related mayhem. They might was well re-title it as Summer 2015: The Sequel.

 

SW The Last Jedi New Posters!



SW The Last Jedi Posters!

 

I liked the second Jurassic Park..

I'm also interested to see this new one, mostly just to see what the heck happens.

The thing that baffles me the most is the inconsistency of the movie's naming. First is Jurassic Park ok cool. Then The Lost World: Jurassic Park. Ok. Then Jurassic Park III? Why not continue the trend? Then Jurassic World? A third type of naming scheme, no "park" involved? Why though? Now a fourth type of naming scheme. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Whats going on here?? I hope if they make a sixth one they go for a completely different name scheme like Jurassic Park: World IV, A New Paradise or something crazy.

 

I love Jurassic Park; we can all agree it was a modern masterpiece. I generally like The Lost World and Jurassic Park, they were technically fine and good enough sequels, there wasn't a huge dip in quality even if they were uninspired. Jurassic World, on the other hand, like TFA, was cynical and unnecessary (also much like InGen itself) and wasn't executed as well as it could've been.

Chris Pratt plays a motorcycle-riding velociraptor cowboy (an 8 year old really could have come up with this idea for all I know). B.D. Wong returns to play the exact same unethical geneticist who apparently learned nothing from the past twenty years. And whereas in the original they drove understatedly cool, rugged Jeep Wranglers around, in Jurassic World they drive... rich soccer mom Mercedes G-Class SUVs with the brand badges always prominently in view... through the jungle and mud... and miraculously they don't even get dirty? In fact, that tells you everything you need to know about the film, right there.

Edit: actually, I don't dislike Jurassic World as much as it may seem I do. It was a fun watch, but I just think the series has officially jumped the park. There's no longer an intellectual sci-fi thriller core.

 

Alright heck I'll rank em

1
2
4
3

I thought World had some interesting ideas, though I was surprised how much it was a dino vs dino fest in the actual film. This new one has intrigued me the same way, though looks like it might be have a bit more tense moments like the first couple.

 

New

I love Jurassic Park; we can all agree it was a modern masterpiece​

-------------​

I fell asleep when I saw it at the cinema...I was about 7 though and had next to zero interest in Dinosaurs ​

 

I remember seeing it at home first time. Though my parents had to cover my eyes when people got eaten Especially that poor lawyer on the toilet.

 

Given both the success of the last movie and the eventuality of having the dinosaurs leave the island, I've always said the perfect title for the new one should have been Jurassic Worldwide. But, hey, what do I know...

I simply can't shake the increasing sense of vapidness from this mega-studio corporate franchising, regardless. A sense that is also cross-pollinating. It's all blending together. But then, I'll happily see the movie in theaters all the same.

Because I'm me: cinema junkie. I'll see anything ...anything

Spoiler

Spoiler