fucking-amal.com

Wow Bruno you came back quicker than me! I think Magnus viewpoint is well stated. I don't necessarily agree though. Way I see it is, if you live in the city, like any country, and you are rich you will do well. If you are poor it is shit, though you can develop good wholesome relationships. If you live in the country (like I do) if you are rich you will do well. If you are low paid, you will never be poor. You will always eat well. Good food is on the doorstep for the taking and people support one another even if they don't like one another. Despite diffrences there is little snobbery in deep country. People need one another and there is a greater emotional warmth. The worst places are suborebia and small towns which have pecking order in social relationships (like seen in Water Lilies and SML/FA). Technology is the playground for the latter. The big winners of the tech revolution are the country-dwellers who use it well and simply for what it's worth, reducing physical distances, staying in touch etc. The losers are the suborebanites who see it as a replacement therapy for really meaningful relationships.

Agnes&Elin Forever! wrote:Bruno, why don't you give some examples of what was better before?

I'll give you some examples of what wasn't better before

All the crap Hollywood movies from the 1980s that are terribly dated today

MTV showing meaningless music videos from boring mainstream artists 24 hours a day

Video cassette recorders that cost a fortune

Cameras where you had to wait two weeks for the damn pictures to be developed

The difficulty to get hold of non-mainstream films or music for example, now you easily order stuff from net-shops, before it was sometimes impossible

EEEk Magnus is on a hobby-horse!

I agree with some points he makes but not others. I agree with the points about technology and availability. Perhaps Ima little old fashioned though in some respects. For me, way back when I first took photos it was the WAIT, the anticipation, to see how your pics came out. These days with digital you get instant feedback. These days you can doctor a photo to take out the zit on the end of your nose. Half the fun of photography was the ''NOT knowing" of how bad you would look.

OK. I'll be controversial. To me it is a reflection of the diffrences between males and females. For guys its all has to be NOW. Instant. Bang-bang. Like Markus it's about size (oddly from a Freudian POV about miniscularity ) rather than potency.

I love loads of really crap (perhaps you mean low-tech) films, because they transcend the techonology available. On that basis alone you would diss FA/SML becasue it was shot on 16-mil. To me the ''graininess'' of the picture helps exude the dream-like quality. Our memories fade and our ability to bring them back into stark consciousness. If anything this helps us focus hard throughout the movie. The blurred VISUAL intesity helps make us focus on the EMOTIONAL intensity.

I'll shut up now

You don't understand snaps

I don't mean low-tech films from the 1980s, on the contrary I mean many of the bigger budget Hollywood films that seem very cheesy today

And I'm no technical geek, I just acknowledge how much the new technology have made things easier and more convenient

Besides no one is forcing you to use all the new stuff, if you'd rather use an old conventional camera for example you can still do that

I can't agree that 80s movies are worse than the ones we get nowadays. There are still plenty of classic 80s films - dated or otherwise - whereas these days there's very little I can even be motivated to drag myself out to the cinema for (or even to rent). Look at Avatar - the technology may be amazing, but the story was still rank.

Television is also not very good at the moment, forget the 80s, even compared to the 90s or even the early 00s.

I'm not anti-tech (I love the net, and I love my DVDs) but a lot of it does seem rather pointless and in the case of cinema, its used an awful lot in place of an actual story.

I hate all mainstream movies, from the 80s to the present

I agree modern cgi movies and such things, as well as internet Facebook and the like are pointless

But most of the new technology are so much better than what we had back in the 80s and early/mid 90s

snaps wrote:...The losers are the suborebanites who see it as a replacement therapy for really meaningful relationships.

I'm always suspicious of new technology where it gives the user an escape from personal contact with other human beings. Next time you're on a bus or a train have a look around at how many people are talking, texting, watching TV or even computing on their mobile phones. I mean what's wrong with making eye contact or talking face to face with someone you don't know, you never know it might end up somewhere nice.

I used to own a mobile phone but wound up throwing it away. If I need to speak with someone now I'll find a phone somewhere. If I need a computer I'll come into my office. If I want to watch TV I'll go into the lounge. If I want to escape from everyone else in the world I'll lock my doors and close my curtains.

So much of today's "new" technology is developed just because it's possible, then the developer try to find a use and as many end users as possible in order to generate wealth. Way, way, way back in the past, I'm talking 80's here, needs were identified first and then technology developed to fill those needs.

I belong to Facebook and Myspace so I can stalk Alex et al but I refuse to have any "friends". I used to belong to Twitter for the same reason till I suddenly found I had people stalking me. WTF.

Technology can be fun but I hate to think it's making us a world of solitary beings who are afraid of personal contact.

Tablet. Rant subsides.

I forgot to mention films before I took my tablet.

Nothing wrong with modern films and their use of CGI, just as there's nothing wrong with films without modern technology to help them along. It all gets back to the story, the screenplay, the director and the actors.

Good/great films have been made for a hundred years or more and will continue being made as long as everything is in place. Lord of the Rings was great, with all its CGI, everyone knows that. I haven't seen Avatar, no doubt I will, so I can't comment on it. Fucking Åmål was great. Coming Home was great. Another great film none of you will have ever seen is The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp. Made in 1943 so no CGI there. Stars Roger Livesey and a young and very beautiful Deborah Kerr. (Scored 91% on Rotten Tomatoes).

With the way technology is speeding along I don't think we can afford to have any bias for or against its use in film making, because today's up to the minute high tech thriller will soon become yesterday's dated also-ran unless it has all the ingredients I mentioned above.

Doubles dose.......ahhhh.......that's better.

I'm just waiting for them to invent VR, then I'm inventing my own little world and getting the hell out of this one.

Save me a seat on your VR Tardis.

Hey you don't need a computer either Fish, why don't you throw it away

fish wrote: Another great film none of you will have ever seen is The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp.

I've seen it in a Powell/ Pressburger season. It is ironic because the film ''Peeping Tom'' near ruined Powell's reputation, yet it is about the same thing we were talking about: the alienation of human interaction through the abuse of technology.

Agnes&Elin Forever! wrote:Hey you don't need a computer either Fish, why don't you throw it away

But then I wouldn't be able to talk with all the wonderful people here.
Nothing wrong with technology as long as it doesn't replace human interaction.

snaps wrote:...I've seen it...

I thought it was great.

I'll have to check out "Peeping Tom" if I can find it anywhere. Don't happen to have an IMDb link by any chance?
Sounds like my kind of film.

Agnes&Elin Forever! wrote:Bruno, why don't you give some examples of what was better before?

Nah, thanks, I prefer put this thing to rest ...