[quote="sheerheartattack"]Movies can be good for several reasons. They can be completely devoid of a plot and still be worth watching. However, if you want to make a great movie, you have to have it all - including a good, solid plot. If you don't have a plot, you can make up for it in other areas. However, in no way is a lack of a good plot a positive thing, and in every way it is a negative thing.

To continue the tennis analogy, Roger Federer is great because he can do everything. Andy Roddick is good, but he will always get his ass kicked by Federer because all he can do is hit the ball really hard. Rafa Nadal is good, but he will also always fall under the shadow of Federer because all he can own on is clay. Get the picture?[/quote]

Heterosexual men know absolutely dick about who plays tennis. Why, sir, do you seem to know who the fuck plays tennis and what they're on about? I call shenanigans. That, or a question to your sexuality.

I can't see why people bitch about this movie having no plot. Because that's not the point. It's about too people who meet in a place neither of them want's to be and what happens. And well, things happen and that's a plot enough. It's the same thing with the novel [i]Old Man and the Sea[/i] by Hemingway

If there were a tight storyline with Yakuza in it or whatever, and Bill Murray coming out of the movie with dirty clothes and blood in forehead like Bruce Willis, the they woldn't got lost in the translation in the first place.

And it's doesn't work to compare art (which rules can always be streched) to sports (which have very strickt rules).

[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"]Movies can be good for several reasons. They can be completely devoid of a plot and still be worth watching. However, if you want to make a great movie, you have to have it all - including a good, solid plot. If you don't have a plot, you can make up for it in other areas. However, in no way is a lack of a good plot a positive thing, and in every way it is a negative thing.

To continue the tennis analogy, Roger Federer is great because he can do everything. Andy Roddick is good, but he will always get his ass kicked by Federer because all he can do is hit the ball really hard. Rafa Nadal is good, but he will also always fall under the shadow of Federer because all he can own on is clay. Get the picture?[/quote]

Heterosexual men know absolutely dick about who plays tennis. Why, sir, do you seem to know who the fuck plays tennis and what they're on about? I call shenanigans. That, or a question to your sexuality.[/quote]

Here's a warning for you. Calling fans of a sport gay is not okay.

[quote="Marekenshin"][quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"]Movies can be good for several reasons. They can be completely devoid of a plot and still be worth watching. However, if you want to make a great movie, you have to have it all - including a good, solid plot. If you don't have a plot, you can make up for it in other areas. However, in no way is a lack of a good plot a positive thing, and in every way it is a negative thing.

To continue the tennis analogy, Roger Federer is great because he can do everything. Andy Roddick is good, but he will always get his ass kicked by Federer because all he can do is hit the ball really hard. Rafa Nadal is good, but he will also always fall under the shadow of Federer because all he can own on is clay. Get the picture?[/quote]

Heterosexual men know absolutely dick about who plays tennis. Why, sir, do you seem to know who the fuck plays tennis and what they're on about? I call shenanigans. That, or a question to your sexuality.[/quote]

Here's a warning for you. Calling fans of a sport gay is not okay.[/quote]

I was just kidding; I actually play tennis.

[quote="Marekenshin"][quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"]Movies can be good for several reasons. They can be completely devoid of a plot and still be worth watching. However, if you want to make a great movie, you have to have it all - including a good, solid plot. If you don't have a plot, you can make up for it in other areas. However, in no way is a lack of a good plot a positive thing, and in every way it is a negative thing.

To continue the tennis analogy, Roger Federer is great because he can do everything. Andy Roddick is good, but he will always get his ass kicked by Federer because all he can do is hit the ball really hard. Rafa Nadal is good, but he will also always fall under the shadow of Federer because all he can own on is clay. Get the picture?[/quote]

Heterosexual men know absolutely dick about who plays tennis. Why, sir, do you seem to know who the fuck plays tennis and what they're on about? I call shenanigans. That, or a question to your sexuality.[/quote]

Here's a warning for you. Calling fans of a sport gay is not okay.[/quote]

lol Mare likes tennis.

We can easily separate tennis into two periods: the Pre-Sharapova Era (Before Sharapova) and the Post-Sharapova Era (Anno Sharapovae). This new, modern era has ushered in a new wave featuring more heterosexual men than ever before.

[quote="Moppi"]I can't see why people bitch about this movie having no plot. Because that's not the point. It's about too people who meet in a place neither of them want's to be and what happens. And well, things happen and that's a plot enough. It's the same thing with the novel [i]Old Man and the Sea[/i] by Hemingway

If there were a tight storyline with Yakuza in it or whatever, and Bill Murray coming out of the movie with dirty clothes and blood in forehead like Bruce Willis, the they woldn't got lost in the translation in the first place.

And it's doesn't work to compare art (which rules can always be streched) to sports (which have very strickt rules).[/quote]

A lot of your post was incomprehensible, but I'll respond to what I can understand. Outside of the magically ideal world of bullshit, the argument that art is not bound by rules or standards is false. I am sure you could rubricate all the aspects which make a movie good, and assign values to each category. When you get to "plot," 0 points is 0 points, and no matter how you look at it, you can make the movie better by making the plot better.

In the culinary arts, for example, if the food doesn't taste good, then you lose right then and there. You can't redeem that with a nice presentation or a delicate blend of herbs and spices.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]A lot of your post was incomprehensible, but I'll respond to what I can understand. Outside of the magically ideal world of bullshit, the argument that art is not bound by rules or standards is false. I am sure you could rubricate all the aspects which make a movie good, and assign values to each category. When you get to "plot," 0 points is 0 points, and no matter how you look at it, you can make the movie better by making the plot better.

In the culinary arts, for example, if the food doesn't taste good, then you lose right then and there. You can't redeem that with a nice presentation or a delicate blend of herbs and spices.[/quote]

I never said that art has no general rules or something. What I said was that they are not as strict as they are in sports.

And I obviously agree that movie with a good plot is better than the same movie with inferior plot. And of course any movie could've been done better, but I just don't think that Lost in Translation is especially poor in that aspect.

It's true that not much happens during the movie and some people can consider that to be boring, but for me it was probably one of the most important things in the movie that created that unique atmosphere. And that atmosphere is probably the reason I like Lost in Translation so much.

Huh. I hope I was more understandable this time.

That [i]was[/i] more understandable, and I do acknowledge that you [i]do[/i] have a point, and when you put it like that, it's rather subjective - you are arguing that it does, in fact, have a good plot.

However, I still think the movie blows, and if Bill Murray wasn't one of my favorite actors, I'd hate it.

I like this movie. (' 3')v

[quote="sonic3305"]Movies don't need to have a plot[/quote]
[quote="sonic3305"]in the traditional Hollywood sense.[/quote]

See, there was an ending to my sentence, too.

LiT has a plot, just not your standard "this and this then this has to happen" Hollywood plot. It is short and simplistic, and all the movie needs to get it's point across. No fat to be trimmed. Simple and profound, like every great film ought to be.

However it is most definitely not the Hollywood fare most of us are raised on, so I can understand why many people are turned off by this. The same goes for There Will Be Blood. A lot of people appreciate the acting, directing, composition, editing, etc of these films, but can't really get attached to the story.

You have some movies like, uh, how about Stranger than Fiction that are great in both aspects of "the technical side" (directing acting editing composition etc) and "the framework of a story we're used to" aspect, and it's a movie most people would like. Then you get stuff like LiT which has the technical stuff there and definitely has the directing and acting there, but doesn't have the kind of story people subconsciously anticipate going into it, and it winds up polarizing opinions on itself. If I make any sense.

As time goes on I think less and less people will appreciate movies like this. Even going twenty years back, look at an action film like Raiders versus something like Bourne Ultimatium. Both are great, but just look at how much more [i]information[/i] we are given with Bourne, in the megaquick editing and the pace of the story and just how much happens within an hour and a half. The pacing of stories and the amount of information about a story we expect to be given keeps getting higher and higher, and for movies that go the "simple and profound" angle, it gets harder and harder to get younger people to "get" it. It is not that younger people are stupid or less cultured, it is simply that more and more people are programmed for the more info-heavy stuff because it's what we're exposed to everywhere (not only movies, this internet thing and how much info we expect out of all aspects of life factors into it too) and will literally just not get some of the slower stuff.

I think both LiT and TWBB are both movies that would be more universally appreciated in places not-US. Hollywood movies are made within a very tight (and sometimes crippling) set of standards, and when people are raised on only domestic movies, it can be hard to swallow something that doesn't fall into the idea of what "good" is that we have literally been sold since childhood.

(This isn't to say that Hollywood movies are bad, just so we're clear)

Coppola's follow-up Marie Antoinette was painfully boring drek, tho. Dunst got her "free boning from Pete" card taken away after that shit.

You know why a lot of people can't get attached to the story of movies like There Will be Blood? BECAUSE IT SUCKS. There was shit for plot, shit for character development, and as a result all the great acting and scenery couldn't save that movie, in my opinion. Of course, those all-knowing critics raved about it, so the rest of us that didn't like it just must not have "gotten" it, right?

"Simple and profound" is different from "simple and boring." That's something a lot of people can't seem to grasp. If something is simple, some people seem to assume it must also be profound, but this is absolutely untrue.

[quote]I think both LiT and TWBB are both movies that would be more universally appreciated in places not-US.[/quote]

Yeah, because everybody knows that the US has shitty taste and the rest of the world has better opinions. Dude, the movies we send out that do the best tend to be, on the whole, ones that do ridiculously well here, like Harry Potter and shit.

There's no such thing as a "traditional Hollywood sense," hence why that part was completely ignored. Hollywood = The Movie Industry. Anything that doesn't specifically exist in "Hollywood" is representative of something that either has been or will be in Hollywood - unless it sucks.

[quote="Marekenshin"][quote]I think both LiT and TWBB are both movies that would be more universally appreciated in places not-US.[/quote]

Yeah, because everybody knows that the US has shitty taste and the rest of the world has better opinions. Dude, the movies we send out that do the best tend to be, on the whole, ones that do ridiculously well here, like Harry Potter and shit.[/quote]

The movies we export that do the best financially overseas are the explosion movies because explosions need no translation to understand. When I said appreciated I didn't mean box office returns.

And yes, I would say that the average taste in the US is less than the rest of the world. By a lot, no, but I think so. Look at our media as a whole. Look at all the shitty movies that get made, the shitty music that is popular, the dumb shit people wear, the crap TV that is the most popular. It's very telling of us as a society. (In general.) We're the world center for crap media, and it's spreading to other societies at a disheartening rate.

The simple and profound comment was meant for LiT, not TWBB, I wasn't entirely clear on that, I was just bringing up TWBB as an example of something else. I wouldn't call TWBB simple and profound, I would call it a two-hour character study of the single most interesting-to-watch character (to me) in the last decade. However that is not enough for a lot of people to enjoy a movie, and again, it's something I understand, but that doesn't mean it "sucks."

Also just because somebody likes something the critics like doesn't automatically make them an elitist prick, nor does it mean they automatically "looks down on" people who don't like it, it just means they liked the movie.

Anyway, yes, I would say LiT is simple and profound, but I think that belief (in regards to this movie) is almost definitely directly linked to whether or not the person watching has either experienced a similar incidence or feeling or something. When I say it's a movie that some people "get" or some people don't, I mean exactly what I say, I'm not suggesting that people who don't get it are stupid or like bad movies or anything (like I said earlier).

And there is most [i]definitely [/i]a traditional Hollywood way of approaching filmmaking and storytelling as opposed to foreign films.

Yes, there is obviously an objective measure of taste, and some tastes are superior to others. There is no way that something like taste could be 100% subjective and utterly founded upon personal opinion.

Surely, there are trends, as well as bigger budgets and therefore greater versatility. However, to translate that as "tradition" is just silly.

I don't know if you are intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting what I'm trying to say but I don't know any other way to put it. There is a Hollywood way to make a movie and people who have grown up on Hollywood movies expect movies to be structured and produced like Hollywood movies.

Most of my friends who were born in 1985-86 grew up on Hollywood movies from 1980-present, and therefore subconsciously approach all movies with their notion of "the right/correct/good" way to make a movie, which they get from the Hollywood way the movies were made. When they are presented with something like Breathless, most of my friends reel and say it's shit, because to them it is, since they have not had much exposure to French new wave stuff in this case and it clashes with their idea of how movies are supposed to be made, and hate the jump cuts and all that bullshit.

A lot of my friends hate Lost in Translation because of the minimalist approach the script takes and the emphasis on long takes and little character moments instead of an overlying arc or major events. Their opinion is not wrong, I am simply observing that their opinion likely stems from the fact that the movies they grew up on were (all the shit I just said)

I think we can all agree Pineapple Express is going to kick freaking ass.