Will this be a steaming pile of crap like the first?
The first was a complete turd of a movie. I really hope this one won't be as bad, but it seems like it will be.
shareFrom the trailer it looks worse.
share
MovieChat Forums > Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) Discussion > Will this be a steaming pile of crap lik...
I think it'll turn out like the Deadpool movies. The first one was alright, held back by behind-the-scenes studio interference but saved by a likeable main character. The second movie has a bigger budget and more confidence from the studio, so it'll hopefully be better movie overall.
shareI thought the first was fun and entertaining. I'm looking forward to this one.
shareI loved the first one. Try to enjoy movies. You'll be a happier person. 😀
shareYeah, stop thinking critically about the quality of your entertainment, just gorge on any old crap that comes down the chute like the good consumer cattle you are!
shareYou know art is subjective, right?
Sometimes people want a hotdog and chips, sometimes they want haute cuisine.
Your enjoyment can be subjective, but the quality of art itself is objective.
shareNot true.
shareNah it’s true
shareNO...IT IS NOT.
shareFor this I bring out the child’s finger painting vs Mona Lisa analogy. One is objectively better than the other.
shareA LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE MONA LISA...A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD PREFER THE FINGER PAINTING OF A CHILD...YOU COULD ATTEMPT TO ARGUE ONE IS STATIC BEST...BUT IT WOULD BE A FALSE CONCLUSION BASED ON YOUR CONCEPT OF THE MONA LISA BEING HIGH ART.
shareThis is actually one of the more fascinating discussions you can have. Is one "objectively" better? Not if you understand what that word means. "Technically" better? That's a more subtle argument to make.
I used to go round and round about this with an ex, who was an artist. We'd talk for HOURS about Pollock's splatters, what they "mean," what technique was involved, whether it was still art if there was no intent/technique involved in the creation, whether it was art if a chimp did the same thing, whether it was art if a random machine shaker did the same thing, whether Leonardo was as talented as everyone said, whether representational art is more vallid/difficult/accessible/meaningful than any level of abstraction. . .
Etc, etc, etc.
Bottom line: These are (essentially) unanswerable questions. And YES: art *is* subjective. That includes finger paintings vs. the Mona Lisa.
We’re talking about extremes here.
On one hand you have the child’s finger painting. ANYONE could do that. It holds no intrinsic value because it takes no skill.
On the other than you have the Mona Lisa. A bonafide masterpiece by anyone’s estimation. It is mathematically and stylistically perfect. It has a rich cultural heritage. But behind all that…. It’s simply better because the child is unable to produce it. Skill is the benchmark of what is objectively good or not. Just like I can admit that Michael Jordan or Messi are objectively great athletes.
If art was truly subjective then we’d have morons sh*tting out Mona Lisa’s and Sistine Chapels left and right. But the fact is that great art’s rarity is precisely what makes it valuable. And art is less a product of the artist than it is the artist’s environment.
"On one hand you have the child’s finger painting. ANYONE could do that. It holds no intrinsic value because it takes no skill."
Every Parent who owns a refrigerator disagrees VEHEMENTLY w/you.
Additionally: I refer you once again to Pollock, or any of a thousand other abstract adherents. Work of this sort is reproducible randomly, by children, by machine calculation, by animals. (Clearly: art exists in a Vacuum.) And when these various works are then shown to "critics," the responses are emotional and varied, and speak volumes about the relationship between "consumers" and "creators." (Clearly: art does Not exist in a Vacuum.)
"Skill is the benchmark of what is objectively good or not."
This is what I meant when I said "technically" better. It's the type of thing that's a LOT easier to quantify. . .but even these considerations are not set in stone. Prince is by almost any measure more technically skilled than Micheal Jackson, but is Prince is a better performer/artist? Depends who you ask.
Similarly, the assertion that Mona Lisas and Sistine Chapels are the benchmark is essentially unsupportable. There is NO metric that can explain why art speaks to a person, an age, a generation; how accurately it communicates intent, or if that's even what's "important." These considerations are, for lack of a better word, Completely Subjective.
Well, only one thing can be said in reply to such eloquence:
BULLSHITE!
A few responses to
Your points: A parent’s platonic love for their child’s artwork is different to me than comparing something as a piece of art itself. One is almost entirely familial sentiment. That’s not to say art can’t have those same ideas, but to me the barometer of skill is a more objective reasoning.
Secondly, your comment about Pollock is unchecked. It’s been proven that Pollock’s style can’t be mimicked and people can indeed tell the difference between him and a monkey making random images.
The comparison about Michael Jackson and Prince is deliberately ambiguous . You purposefully chose two identical entertainers when my point was about extremes to prove that there are limits to what is great art and what isn’t. I never denied that it doesn’t exist on a spectrum.
Your last point: the argument just descends into whether art itself is worth anything, which is a separate argument. I could be the most ambivalent person in the world and not give a shred about art, just like I don’t care about sports, and yet I can still admit to where skill is present and great, talented art is created in a general modern sense. Just like I can judge the quality of any product.
Maybe. It clocks at 97 minutes.
sharemight be worse
sharequite enjoyed the first one myself.
if this is more of the same, i'll be satisfied.
I didn’t like the first one either but it’s mainly due to how they turned one of Spider-Man’s best villains into some goofy anti-hero.
This one could be an improvement though, Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady seems good casting.
It has a 97 minute running time though, which means that Stephen Graham and Naomie Harris are probably going to be wasted in their roles.
I’ll give it a chance but I’m keeping my expectations very low.