|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Sept 13, 2021 4:08:17 GMT
What does that even mean? If you're implying that I think films can be judged as "objectively" good or bad, you couldn't be further from the truth. Apart from on a few purely technical levels (which even then can be argued as being "accepted norms" as opposed to objectively correct ways to perform the task) I believe appreciation of all art is completely subjective. Hence my point - even is something is massively popular and liked by everyone, bar one person, doesn't make that person's opinion any less valid. I said you equate quality with objectivety when quality is completely subjective. We the audience gets to decide if a movie is good or bad. And if you read my whole response you'd see that was pretty much what I said. Quality is subjective. A film's popularity or how much it makes (a more or less objective measure) is not an inherent sign of quality.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 13, 2021 15:25:03 GMT
In short, it's a nice place, engendering loyalty and camaraderie. Kinda like to keep it that way. Can we count on you to help do so? What the OP said is patently wrong. And I replied accordingly. To my question, that looks like a "No." Pity. "Repl[ying] accordingly" needn't entail personal invective. As any randomly chosen nine-year-old can readily demonstrate, slinging insults is easy, and conveys little in the way of intellect, imagination or creativity. Most posters here are more thoughtful, interesting and erudite; something any person worthy of consideration might adopt as an aspiration, if only to avoid appearing just another internet bore. Your choice.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 13, 2021 15:49:46 GMT
I’m not exactly convinced that the classic, clue-centered mystery story ever really did die (as much my fellow genre buffs say it did, at least), whether in movies or books—it just started wearing new clothes. Take The Da Vinci Code, the second-highest-grossing movie of 2006. Putting aside any qualms about it as a movie (I’ve always kinda liked it while recognizing its flaws—it’s a helluva lot more fun than the unreadable book), it was an old-fashioned mystery masquerading as a thriller—complete with clues, alibis, red herrings, and a least-likely murderer. It even had that Ellery Queen favorite, the dying clue (and a surprisingly good reason for the victim’s not doing the obvious thing and writing his killer’s name). Before that, though, think of all those ’90s thrillers, a bunch of which did have clues, detectives, and red herrings. Offhand I’m thinking of Kiss the Girls (1997), which is not a great mystery—a single Murder, She Wrote-esque clue, an obvious least-likely killer—but is definitely a mystery, just dressed up like a thriller. And then, in the late 2010s and continuing now, the mystery came roaring back to the movies in old clothes: Kenneth’s Branagh’s readaptation of Murder on the Orient Express (2017) made $351 mil. and got a sequel; Rian Johnson’s Knives Out (2019), a clue-packed mystery with a nonviolent sleuth (basically a comical Poirot), was a blowout success, recouping $311 million against a $40 million budget and getting a sequel; and the mystery was alive and well enough that Adam Sandler wanted to parody it with Murder Mystery (2019), a Netflix success that is, yes, getting a sequel. Even if the ’90s mystery-thrillers don’t fit the bill on nonviolent sleuths, the Branagh, Johnson, and Sandler movies certainly do. While we’re at it, I don’t think the classic mystery has disappeared from TV either. The much-award-winning Monk (2002-2009) is a close cousin of Columbo: Both shows have intricate, clue-filled plots despite (usually) showing the killer’s identity early on. And certainly British shows have never stopped offering traditional mysteries, e.g., Jonathan Creek (1997-2004, off and on since then) and the still-running and very popular Death in Paradise (2011-present). So I’m not sure the mystery ever went away. While we have a range of views on mysteries in this thread, I think the audience will always be there for a genre that, at least at its best, combines the emotional thrill of character and story (believe it or not, Christie could do in-depth characterization—read, e.g., Five Little Pigs) and the intellectual thrill of puzzle-solving, of feeling a blend of surprise and inevitability when the pieces come together to show an unexpected pattern. ___________________________________________________ One more thing and then I’m out: This combination of mystery and thriller is (contra mystery writer John Dickson Carr, who I don’t think really believed what he preached on this front) nothing new. Arthur Conan Doyle’s “The Adventure of the Speckled Band”—a mystery story by any account—has popped up in anthologies as gothic fiction, horror fiction, adventure fiction, you name it. Even during the so-called Golden Age of Detective Fiction, when the emphasis on ratiocination was at its height, Agatha Christie was combining mystery and pure thrills ( The Seven Dials Mystery, The A.B.C. Murders, Murder Is Easy, especially And Then There Were None). Carr, the king of complex plots, virtually made a career out of it (see, well, almost every Carr book). Ellery Queen began “his” career with books of bloodless logic but quickly combined intricate plots with thrills ( The Egyptian Cross Mystery, The Siamese Twin Mystery), character development ( Calamity Town, The Murderer Is a Fox), and both ( Ten Days’ Wonder, Cat of Many Tails).
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Sept 13, 2021 16:11:29 GMT
What the OP said is patently wrong. And I replied accordingly. To my question, that looks like a "No." Pity. "Repl[ying] accordingly" needn't entail personal invective. As any randomly chosen nine-year-old can readily demonstrate, slinging insults is easy, and conveys little in the way of intellect, imagination or creativity. Most posters here are more thoughtful, interesting and erudite; something any person worthy of consideration might adopt as an aspiration, if only to avoid appearing just another internet bore. Your choice. Bravo. And this from a guy who sometimes has trouble holding his temper and his mouth - at least on other boards.
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on Sept 13, 2021 16:43:11 GMT
What the OP said is patently wrong. And I replied accordingly. To my question, that looks like a "No." Pity. "Repl[ying] accordingly" needn't entail personal invective. As any randomly chosen nine-year-old can readily demonstrate, slinging insults is easy, and conveys little in the way of intellect, imagination or creativity. Most posters here are more thoughtful, interesting and erudite; something any person worthy of consideration might adopt as an aspiration, if only to avoid appearing just another internet bore. Your choice. Stop trying to "teach" me how to post, you condeseceding fool. I say it as I see it. If you find that offensive, then tough shit.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Sept 13, 2021 18:23:32 GMT
To my question, that looks like a "No." Pity. "Repl[ying] accordingly" needn't entail personal invective. As any randomly chosen nine-year-old can readily demonstrate, slinging insults is easy, and conveys little in the way of intellect, imagination or creativity. Most posters here are more thoughtful, interesting and erudite; something any person worthy of consideration might adopt as an aspiration, if only to avoid appearing just another internet bore. Your choice. Stop trying to "teach" me how to post, you condeseceding fool. I say it as I see it. If you find that offensive, then tough shit.
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Sept 13, 2021 18:27:41 GMT
The mystery movie, that is, the murder puzzle from the Golden Age of detective mystery (generally, the 1920 thru the 1950s), began to change about the same time as the books began to change. In the early 1970s, book critics were starting to write about murder novels that included real character development and commentary on crime in society, grief, and other effects that a death by murder has on people. Both P.D. James and Ross MacDonald got New York Times Book Review front page attention. Most mysteries written today, especially with continuing characters from book to book, respond to that by developing over many volumes the protagonists’ love and family life. Some of the procedurals and the so-called “cozies” pay scant attention to the actual murder plot and the killer is often revealed, not through detection, the following of clues, but by a final attack on the investigator. Today’s movie crime pictures are rarely mysteries by a Golden Age definition but may exploit violence and action, perhaps showing the good guys as ruthless and the baddies (Michael Mann’s “Heat” [1995] and the more recent but similar in plot, “Den Of Thieves” [2018]). Others take a more nihilistic viewpoint of life, showing crime and violence as a way of life, like “Drive” (2011), a Gritty Urban Crime Drama with car chases down busy streets, brutal fights, and men shot dead on cracked, sunbaked parking lots with weeds growing out of the cracks in the asphalt. In short, the world began to change in the 1960s and during that time readers’ and movie watchers’ expectations changed with the times. Happily, we can revisit The Thin Man, Miss Marple, The Falcon and a dozen other classic era films and series that we can see again and again and take delight even by knowing the ending. Have you ever seen CITY OF INDUSTRY (1997) mike?
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Sept 13, 2021 22:14:04 GMT
There is a reason that I referenced Mrs. Marple, Holmes and Chan in my original post- they were examples of the intellectually focused mystery films of the past. As I stated in the OP, these were "intellectual" problems solved by "non-violent" sleuths. The viewer relaxed into an experience that was principally detached- as in solving a crossword.
The reason that I made this distinction is that the element of mystery is in every movie so it's not hard to argue any movie as being a mystery. Salzmank is right to include Monk but many of the other references involve high levels of emotionalism, violence, sex, or fear.
And when one thinks about it, Murder She Wrote, Monk, Masterpiece Theatre series, Murder She Baked (a Hallmark series) etc. is a pretty meager offering given the number of channels on TV the last 40 years. Mystery used to be a mainstay of a studio's lineup for any year- these were often cheaply made movies but they were regularly made- today it is sporadic output (to be charitable) and most of the current mysteries have no relation at all to the peaceful sleuthing of past years (the Robert Downey version of Sherlock Holmes shows how much the original formula has been altered beyond recognition).
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Sept 13, 2021 22:22:33 GMT
Regarding forum manners, I have found there is nothing more powerful than ostracism when it comes to abusive personalities- I ignore them and never respond. I let them say whatever they want about me b/c I really don't care about their opinion- they can have the last word. Replying is feeding the beast.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Sept 13, 2021 22:26:02 GMT
What the OP said is patently wrong. And I replied accordingly. To my question, that looks like a "No." Pity. "Repl[ying] accordingly" needn't entail personal invective. As any randomly chosen nine-year-old can readily demonstrate, slinging insults is easy, and conveys little in the way of intellect, imagination or creativity. Most posters here are more thoughtful, interesting and erudite; something any person worthy of consideration might adopt as an aspiration, if only to avoid appearing just another internet bore. Your choice. If you were familiar with the poster in question's "style" you'd realise not to waste your time, hence why I didn't bother with the niceties.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 13, 2021 22:53:01 GMT
I’m not exactly convinced that the classic, clue-centered mystery story ever really did die (as much my fellow genre buffs say it did, at least), whether in movies or books—it just started wearing new clothes. Take The Da Vinci Code, the second-highest-grossing movie of 2006. Putting aside any qualms about it as a movie (I’ve always kinda liked it while recognizing its flaws—it’s a helluva lot more fun than the unreadable book), it was an old-fashioned mystery masquerading as a thriller—complete with clues, alibis, red herrings, and a least-likely suspect. It even had that Ellery Queen favorite, the dying clue (and a surprisingly good reason for the victim’s not doing the obvious thing and writing his killer’s name). Before that, though, think of all those ’90s thrillers, a bunch of which did have clues, detectives, and red herrings. Offhand I’m thinking of Kiss the Girls (1997), which is not a great mystery—a single Murder, She Wrote-esque clue, an obvious least-likely suspect—but is definitely a mystery, just dressed up like a thriller. And then, in the late 2010s and continuing now, the mystery came roaring back to the movies in old clothes: Kenneth’s Branagh’s readaptation of Murder on the Orient Express (2017) made $351 mil. and got a sequel; Rian Johnson’s Knives Out (2019), a clue-packed mystery with a nonviolent sleuth (basically a comical Poirot), was a blowout success, recouping $311 million against a $40 million budget and getting a sequel; and the mystery was alive and well enough that Adam Sandler wanted to parody it with Murder Mystery (2019), a Netflix success that is, yes, getting a sequel. Even if the ’90s mystery-thrillers don’t fit the bill on nonviolent sleuths, the Branagh, Johnson, and Sandler movies certainly do. While we’re at it, I don’t think the classic mystery has disappeared from TV either. The much-award-winning Monk (2002-2009) is a close cousin of Columbo: Both shows have intricate, clue-filled plots despite (usually) showing the killer’s identity at the beginning. And certainly British shows have never stopped offering traditional mysteries, e.g., Jonathan Creek (1997-2004, off and on since then) and the still-running and very popular Death in Paradise (2011-present). So I’m not sure the mystery ever went away. While we have a range of views on mysteries in this thread, I think the audience will always be there for a genre that, at least at its best, combines the emotional thrill of character and story (believe it or not, Christie could do in-depth characterization—read, e.g., Five Little Pigs) and the intellectual thrill of puzzle-solving, of feeling a blend of surprise and inevitability when the pieces come together to show an unexpected pattern. ___________________________________________________ One more thing and then I’m out: This combination of mystery and thriller is (contra mystery writer John Dickson Carr, who I don’t think really believed what he preached on this front) nothing new. Arthur Conan Doyle’s “The Adventure of the Speckled Band”—a mystery story by any account—has popped up in anthologies as gothic fiction, horror fiction, adventure fiction, you name it. Even during the so-called Golden Age of Detective Fiction, when the emphasis on ratiocination was at its height, Agatha Christie was combining mystery and pure thrills ( The Seven Dials Mystery, The A.B.C. Murders, Murder Is Easy, especially And Then There Were None). Carr, the king of complex plots, virtually made a career out of it (see, well, almost every Carr book). Ellery Queen began “his” career with books of bloodless logic but quickly combined intricate plots with thrills ( The Egyptian Cross Mystery, The Siamese Twin Mystery), character development ( Calamity Town, The Murderer Is a Fox), and both ( Ten Days’ Wonder, Cat of Many Tails). Hola, amigo. So glad you weighed in on the topic; been on the lookout for it. I'd had some similar thoughts on how the traditional mystery form had been popularly dressed up in "thriller" drag by the '90s, and your articulation pretty much obviates anything I could add. Likewise with the now-venerable British telly mysteries, going back to Holmes, Morse, Frost, Poirot and too many others to name, right up to today's excellent Vera, colorful Midsomer Murders and the aforementioned Death In Paradise (the latter two of which we're currently waiting for new eps to show on Britbox). Whether it's grit, whimsy or anything in between, there's something for every taste. We've seen some nifty ones from the down-under regions as well: Australia's Doctor Blake Mysteries series and the mini-series Mystery Road (with the estimable Judy Davis) and, from New Zealand, the quirky and now-sadly-gone Brokenwood Mysteries. And I never fail to learn something from your posts. It's always a treat when you're here.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 13, 2021 23:50:53 GMT
To my question, that looks like a "No." Pity. "Repl[ying] accordingly" needn't entail personal invective. As any randomly chosen nine-year-old can readily demonstrate, slinging insults is easy, and conveys little in the way of intellect, imagination or creativity. Most posters here are more thoughtful, interesting and erudite; something any person worthy of consideration might adopt as an aspiration, if only to avoid appearing just another internet bore. Your choice. If you were familiar with the poster in question's "style" you'd realise not to waste your time, hence why I didn't bother with the niceties. Happily enough, I'd no recollection of encountering that particular one before. But they've made it clear they have nothing to offer, so good luck to 'em with it.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Sept 13, 2021 23:59:19 GMT
If you were familiar with the poster in question's "style" you'd realise not to waste your time, hence why I didn't bother with the niceties. Happily enough, I'd no recollection of encountering that particular one before. But they've made it clear they have nothing to offer, so good luck to 'em with it. They usually stick to the Film General board.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 14, 2021 2:07:12 GMT
Hola, amigo. So glad you weighed in on the topic; been on the lookout for it. I'd had some similar thoughts on how the traditional mystery form had been popularly dressed up in "thriller" drag by the '90s, and your articulation pretty much obviates anything I could add. Likewise with the now-venerable British telly mysteries, going back to Holmes, Morse, Frost, Poirot and too many others to name, right up to today's excellent Vera, colorful Midsomer Murders and the aforementioned Death In Paradise (the latter two of which we're currently waiting for new eps to show on Britbox). Whether it's grit, whimsy or anything in between, there's something for every taste. We've seen some nifty ones from the down-under regions as well: Australia's Doctor Blake Mysteries series and the mini-series Mystery Road (with the estimable Judy Davis) and, from New Zealand, the quirky and now-sadly-gone Brokenwood Mysteries. And I never fail to learn something from your posts. It's always a treat when you're here. Much too kind, mi amigo, and right back at you—I learn so much from your posts and always appreciate your insightful, intelligent comments. My uncle, who’s a big fan of British (and Commonwealth) mystery shows, highly recommended Brokenwood as well… With your recommendation and his, I’ve definitely got to check it out! And I too can’t wait for the next season of Death in Paradise… Unpopular opinion alert, but the new guy’s my favorite DI since Poole!
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Sept 14, 2021 2:28:36 GMT
Happily enough, I'd no recollection of encountering that particular one before. But they've made it clear they have nothing to offer, so good luck to 'em with it. They usually stick to the Film General board. Do you think Mulder eggs on Scully, or vice versa, or are they equally culpable?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 14, 2021 2:32:07 GMT
There is a reason that I referenced Mrs. Marple, Holmes and Chan in my original post- they were examples of the intellectually focused mystery films of the past. As I stated in the OP, these were "intellectual" problems solved by "non-violent" sleuths. The viewer relaxed into an experience that was principally detached- as in solving a crossword. The reason that I made this distinction is that the element of mystery is in every movie so it's not hard to argue any movie as being a mystery. Salzmank is right to include Monk but many of the other references involve high levels of emotionalism, violence, sex, or fear. And when one thinks about it, Murder She Wrote, Monk, Masterpiece Theatre series, Murder She Baked (a Hallmark series) etc. is a pretty meager offering given the number of channels on TV the last 40 years. Mystery used to be a mainstay of a studio's lineup for any year- these were often cheaply made movies but they were regularly made- today it is sporadic output (to be charitable) and most of the current mysteries have no relation at all to the peaceful sleuthing of past years (the Robert Downey version of Sherlock Holmes shows how much the original formula has been altered beyond recognition). That was sort of my point, though (or at least the point I tried to express): The solely “intellectual” problem solved by a solely “nonviolent” sleuth doesn’t really exist, or at least is only a very small portion of a larger genre. Take Murder at the Gallop, for example: It features a guy who’s locked in a stall and trampled to death by a horse. Seems thrilleresque, no? Or take the Downey Sherlock Holmes. I don’t like all the changes made for those movies, but Doyle in his time was writing what were considered thriller stories—with hellhounds, action-packed climaxes (complete with imaginary martial arts) on waterfalls, and trained snakes that slide down bell ropes to attack virtuous maidens. I don’t mean that to be sarcastic; the more I learn about the genre, though, the more I think some mystery fans’ idealization of a story without, as you put it, emotionalism, violence, sex, or fear—some cold lesson in abstract logic, with all the human interest of a cryptic crossword—never existed. Even if it did, it doesn’t sound like anything I personally would like to read or watch. In other words, I can’t think of any movie—though maybe I’m misunderstanding something—that satisfies your criteria. Certainly ’30s and ’40s mysteries are full of adventure, thriller, and horror elements—Charlie Chan without a doubt (curses in CC in Egypt! Boris Karloff as an escaped lunatic in CC at the Opera! Psychics and serial killings in CC at Treasure Island!).
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Sept 14, 2021 2:33:08 GMT
They usually stick to the Film General board. Very occasionally, by following a link, I find myself accidentally posting in Film General. I feel like a driver who has somehow ended up in a very bad part of town but who is too scared to wind down the window to ask the quickest way out.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Sept 14, 2021 3:05:12 GMT
They usually stick to the Film General board. Very occasionally, by following a link, I find myself accidentally posting in Film General. I feel like a driver who has somehow ended up in a very bad part of town but who is too scared to wind down the window to ask the quickest way out. It's actually pretty reasonable for the most part, at least relatively.
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on Sept 14, 2021 3:28:58 GMT
To my question, that looks like a "No." Pity. "Repl[ying] accordingly" needn't entail personal invective. As any randomly chosen nine-year-old can readily demonstrate, slinging insults is easy, and conveys little in the way of intellect, imagination or creativity. Most posters here are more thoughtful, interesting and erudite; something any person worthy of consideration might adopt as an aspiration, if only to avoid appearing just another internet bore. Your choice. If you were familiar with the poster in question's "style" you'd realise not to waste your time, hence why I didn't bother with the niceties. I always find it hilarious when I bruise your fragile ego. Poor loser.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Sept 14, 2021 3:40:24 GMT
If you were familiar with the poster in question's "style" you'd realise not to waste your time, hence why I didn't bother with the niceties. I always find it hilarious when I bruise your fragile ego. Poor loser. Your posting history makes it pretty clear who has the bruised ego. I'm not the one constantly defending my taste and resorting to petty name calling when anyone dares to like a film I've not heard of.
|
|