› ›

Skyfall: Billion Dollar Bond

1…3132343637…82

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    Without commercialising art, there would be none anymore. people make money out of art everywere in the world and sometimes art is used to nothing but make money. What gave you the idea, art is no whore? It is and always was.

    Oh don't get me wrong I am not naive enough to assume that art does not make money. I think I'd have to be clinically insane to assume otherwise. My point was that however much money it makes in the end, true art is all about the beginning. A good artist doesn't know what he/she is doing when they start out, they work it out and learn as they go. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad. But it is art. They don't begin their creative process having to factor in considerations such as, 'where can we show the Omega' or 'How do we incorporate the Aston Martin'.

    I don't think commerical cinema can call itself art when so much value is attached to it's potential revenue. Do you really think if SF had been a genuine piece of 'art house' cinema, that was lauded the world over but made a loss, they would be happy? There are individuals in the film industry who are 'artists' but when they come together to produce a film that relies so heavily on product placement and commercial success the 'art' is diminished.

    Anyway, as has been said everyone views art differently. I'm not saying this description is or isn't the definition of art. It's my definition of art. If you think Bond is 'art' I think your mad but that's your perogative.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    Oh don't get me wrong I am not naive enough to assume that art does not make money. I think I'd have to be clinically insane to assume otherwise. My point was that however much money it makes in the end, true art is all about the beginning. A good artist doesn't know what he/she is doing when they start out, they work it out and learn as they go. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad. But it is art. They don't begin their creative process having to factor in considerations such as, 'where can we show the Omega' or 'How do we incorporate the Aston Martin'.

    I don't think commerical cinema can call itself art when so much value is attached to it's potential revenue. Do you really think if SF had been a genuine piece of 'art house' cinema, that was lauded the world over but made a loss, they would be happy? There are individuals in the film industry who are 'artists' but when they come together to produce a film that relies so heavily on product placement and commercial success the 'art' is diminished.

    Anyway, as has been said everyone views art differently. I'm not saying this description is or isn't the definition of art. It's my definition of art. If you think Bond is 'art' I think your mad but that's your perogative.
    Pretty restrictive way of looking at it, I think.

  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX https://www.behance.net/gallery/86760163/Fa-Posteres-de-007-No-Time-To-Die
    Posts: 2,635
    Bond had never won a great Gross for a long time. I am just thinking that SF has won that much of money, because of Bond's 50th anniversary. Just saying.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    ColonelSun wrote:
    "Making money is art and good business is the best art" -- apologies if I may have slightly misquoted, but there you go.
    Andy Warhol. You've remembered his quote spot on, mate.

  • mnhettiamnhettia
    Posts: 203
    RC7 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    I don't think it's any criteria at all to be judging something's artistic merit.
    Isn't art by its very nature meant to be appreciated by others?

    Indeed. The entire purpose of art is to share it. It thrives on reviews, no matter how negative to exist as a piece of "art".

    Ha ha are we discussing Bond as art in a thread about Box Office stats? True Art concerns itself with philosophical and aesthetic values, not commercial ones.[/quote]

    SF managed to be philosophical and have aesthetic values and also become commercially viable. So it qualifies as art even by your own definition.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Oh don't get me wrong I am not naive enough to assume that art does not make money. I think I'd have to be clinically insane to assume otherwise. My point was that however much money it makes in the end, true art is all about the beginning. A good artist doesn't know what he/she is doing when they start out, they work it out and learn as they go. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad. But it is art. They don't begin their creative process having to factor in considerations such as, 'where can we show the Omega' or 'How do we incorporate the Aston Martin'.

    I don't think commerical cinema can call itself art when so much value is attached to it's potential revenue. Do you really think if SF had been a genuine piece of 'art house' cinema, that was lauded the world over but made a loss, they would be happy? There are individuals in the film industry who are 'artists' but when they come together to produce a film that relies so heavily on product placement and commercial success the 'art' is diminished.

    Anyway, as has been said everyone views art differently. I'm not saying this description is or isn't the definition of art. It's my definition of art. If you think Bond is 'art' I think your mad but that's your perogative.
    Pretty restrictive way of looking at it, I think.

    Well I would say that not knowing what you are really doing at the start of a creative process is quite liberating.

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    Well I would say that not knowing what you are really doing at the start of a creative process is quite liberating.
    Except that you already predetermined some things that could not be considered.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Well I would say that not knowing what you are really doing at the start of a creative process is quite liberating.
    Except that you already predetermined some things that could not be considered.

    Such as?
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    Such as?

    "They don't begin their creative process having to factor in considerations such as, 'where can we show the Omega' or 'How do we incorporate the Aston Martin'. "

    Wasn't that what you said? Those are restrictions.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Such as?

    "They don't begin their creative process having to factor in considerations such as, 'where can we show the Omega' or 'How do we incorporate the Aston Martin'. "

    Wasn't that what you said? Those are restrictions.

    That doesn't mean they are not considered. It means if they happen organically then they will. If you begin a story knowing certain things must and must not happen that is restricive. Do you think they'd have kept the DB5 out of SF for artistic reasons? No, they shoe-horned it in good and proper. Anyway, quite honestly this is becoming tedious. If you guys think Bond is an art film then that is cool with me. You can send me some of those drugs while you're at it ;)
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    That doesn't mean they are not considered. It means if they happen organically then they will. If you begin a story knowing certain things must and must not happen that is restrictive. Do you think they'd have kept the DB5 out of SF for artistic reasons? No, they shoe-horned it in good and proper. Anyway, quite honestly this is becoming tedious. If you guys think Bond is an art film then that is cool with me. You can send me some of those drugs while you're at it ;)
    If what you're saying was correct, they'd have figured out a way to shoehorn a DB5 into Quantum, too, wouldn't they?



  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    That doesn't mean they are not considered. It means if they happen organically then they will. If you begin a story knowing certain things must and must not happen that is restrictive. Do you think they'd have kept the DB5 out of SF for artistic reasons? No, they shoe-horned it in good and proper. Anyway, quite honestly this is becoming tedious. If you guys think Bond is an art film then that is cool with me. You can send me some of those drugs while you're at it ;)
    If what you're saying was correct, they'd have figured out a way to shoehorn a DB5 into Quantum, too, wouldn't they?

    Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
    I'm sure that's true.

  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    Posts: 2,015
    Box office comparison is a form of art, anyway.

    Just look at the MI6 front page, explaining how Skyfall being #2 behind Twilight #1 this week is actually something which hides the opposite !

    It looks like doing subtle computations is ok when it's for making Skyfall bigger than it already is. But when it's to say that the 60's Bondmania was still in another range, it's "boring" :)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
    I'm sure that's true.

    You backed yourself into a corner, just admit it. That's what happens when you try to justify something you can't. I explained what I consider to be art and why SF does not constitute that. I'm not saying I'm right but you seem to think I'm wrong. It's a slippery slope mate and it's not black and white.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:
    It looks like doing subtle computations is ok when it's for making Skyfall bigger than it already is. But when it's to say that the 60's Bondmania was still in another range, it's "boring" :)
    Well, there's no denying what happening now has nothing on the mania that developed around the character in the 60s. That really was Bond-mania!

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    You backed yourself into a corner, just admit it. That's what happens when you try to justify something you can't. I explained what I consider to be art and why SF does not constitute that. I'm not saying I'm right but you seem to think I'm wrong. It's a slippery slope mate and it's not black and white.
    Physician, heal thyself.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    You backed yourself into a corner, just admit it. That's what happens when you try to justify something you can't. I explained what I consider to be art and why SF does not constitute that. I'm not saying I'm right but you seem to think I'm wrong. It's a slippery slope mate and it's not black and white.
    Physician, heal thyself.

    Pot, Kettle etc.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    Pot, Kettle etc.
    Whatever you have to tell yourself, mate.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Pot, Kettle etc.
    Whatever you have to tell yourself, mate.

    I have nothing else to say to you so shall we return to the B.O. discussion...
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    edited December 2012 Posts: 6,601
    RC7 - WHERE in all my last posts, did I state, that SF is a piece of art. I neither said it is, nore it is not. I compared blockbuster movies with smaller deep films and asked the question, that is still unanswered - where does art start? Is a film better just because it has serious issues in it? If it fails to grab the audience with it (and I am not talking 500 mill) then it is failed art. Is a film made to conquer a mass audience and does, is it that, just ecause its made for mass audiences?
    I say NO, but many here seem to have a different opinion, which has not been made clear, why? And even thoug I was speaking in general, you came back to SF and its product placeent. So - if you pay an artist to include your brand into his piece of art, he stops being an artist as of - right away? Really? Maybe look at it, that its more difficult to move along with his original ideas and not loose them over any sort of restriction and IF he dos, don't let it weaken your performance.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    @Germanlady - I've stated where I stand on art and where I think Bond lies in that. I also stated that I'm neither right or wrong nor would I say you are right or wrong. IMO there is a weight of commericiality hanging over bond that means for me it's not really 'art'. I can follow through my justifications unlike some others but I'm not suggesting anyone is wrong, just a bit mad in my eyes.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    I have nothing else to say to you so shall we return to the B.O. discussion...
    If only that were true!

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    I have nothing else to say to you so shall we return to the B.O. discussion...
    If only that were true!

    If you hadn't noticed I've tried to move on but I'm being attacked left, right and centre by the Skyfall police. Skyfall is high art. Let's move on.

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    edited December 2012 Posts: 803
    Germanlady wrote:
    where does art start?
    Well, personally, I tend to give it a pretty broad definition:

    1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
    2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.

    Movies would seem to fall into that.

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    edited December 2012 Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    If you hadn't noticed I've tried to move on but I'm being attacked left, right and centre by the Skyfall police. Skyfall is high art. Let's move on.
    See what I mean? You seem incapable of moving on, of letting it alone, mate.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    If you hadn't noticed I've tried to move on but I'm being attacked left, right and centre by the Skyfall police. Skyfall is high art. Let's move on.
    See what I mean? You seem incapable of moving on, of letting it alone, mate.

    And you seem equally incapable of just shutting up. How about you don't reply to me from hereon in and I will grant you the same courtesy. Deal?
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    And you seem equally incapable of just shutting up. How about you don't reply to me from hereon in and I will grant you the same courtesy. Deal?
    'Fraid not. Courtesy seems anathema to you, and I am not the sort to just sit back and take others barbs. .

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    And you seem equally incapable of just shutting up. How about you don't reply to me from hereon in and I will grant you the same courtesy. Deal?
    'Fraid not. Courtesy seems anathema to you, and I am not the sort to just sit back and take others barbs.

    I-)
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    I-)

    Which is about what I'd expect out of you.

Sign In or Register to comment.