Games vs. R-Rated Movies

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

27 Dec 2004, 06:07 PM
Revoltor

Taboo was one of the weirdest porns ever. It begins with some chick slitting her wrists and bleeding to death in a bathtub.

No wait, that was the Devil in Miss Jones...
27 Dec 2004, 11:28 PM
Prome

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

There is no '70s equivalent of Lord of the Rings either.

But what about the animated version of Lord of the Rings that came out in the 70s? That was pure gold! Gold I say! :p
28 Dec 2004, 01:52 AM
salmonax

Part of what made the 70s great for movies is that the studio system broke down, as the old movie moguls gave way to corporate buyouts of studios. There was confusion about what direction to take during this time of transition, so a lot of young upstarts like Scorcese, Lucas, DePalma and Coppola go to do high profile projects they'd never get approval for if the old guard were still running the studios.
28 Dec 2004, 02:11 AM
Fe 26

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Not 1974 in particular, but the 1970s in general are considered the best for movies. Filmmakers were unafraid to take risks and did not worry about dumbing down movies for the general audience at large, and you had a time when mature, complex films were successful both critically and commercially. It was also a time when filmmakers, after honing their craft for 40+ years, had a wide array of tools to use. The Godfather I & II, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, Mean Streets, Patton, Chinatown, Star Wars, Deer Hunter, etc. Lots of really brave, adventurous, innovative filmmaking going on at that time that you just dont see nowadays.

Hmm, I would still say your orginal statement is debatable. BUT, if you were to say "it was the best period for film makers" I would agree. They don't get the same freedom they once did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prome

But what about the animated version of Lord of the Rings that came out in the 70s? That was pure gold! Gold I say! :p

I don't know about that. LOTR should have been longer. More artsy fartsy long shots of action and stuff.
28 Dec 2004, 03:43 AM
The_Meach

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Not 1974 in particular, but the 1970s in general are considered the best for movies. Filmmakers were unafraid to take risks and did not worry about dumbing down movies for the general audience at large, and you had a time when mature, complex films were successful both critically and commercially. It was also a time when filmmakers, after honing their craft for 40+ years, had a wide array of tools to use. The Godfather I & II, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, Mean Streets, Patton, Chinatown, Star Wars, Deer Hunter, etc. Lots of really brave, adventurous, innovative filmmaking going on at that time that you just dont see nowadays.

Thank you Roger Ebert.

Part of the reason the 70s movies are deified is b/c all those movies were the movies the powerful generation of today (ppl in middle age who shape opinion) grew up on. I'd be willing to bet that if Martin Scorcese, Roger Ebert, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg and all the 'important/serious' actors hadn't made/cut-their-teeth/grew-up-with 70s movies they wouldn't been seen in the light they are today. There are a ton of other reasons too (sandwiched b/w the 60s/80s make that decade look really good), including the fact that there were some really awesome movies, the creative explosion following the studio system and an entire generation of really talented/serious actors/directors/writers came into their own.

Anyways.

Part of the reason Hollywood turned away from Seagal-type action movies was that there wasn't any money in it. Shrek, Toy Story and other G rated movies make TONS of money b/c the whole family goes. Hollywood finally latched on to this and started toning down the violence/sex to get Mom/Dad into the seats (ever wonder why Independence Day, Spider-Man and all the other summer blockbusters shoot for PG-13?).

Anyways. (again)

But Hollywood isn't just about the money (see: the Oscars). Hollywood is comprised of two types of ppl: suits (and creators) that want the cashola, and artists that want to be recognized for their artistic talents. The videogame industry is cultivating a similar...um, culture. But whereas movies see this division along budgetary lines, videogames are beginning to feel this on a more fundamental level.

Videogaming is trying to decide if it will become an art form or not. On one hand, creators like Valve make games like Half-Life that, while not art, are clearly moving in that direction. On the other, companies like EA make games like Madden that don't pretend to be art and are actively moving away from that direction. Sports games, racers, fighters and even certain types of shooters are about 'having fun' first and 'honing teh_skillz' second. This type of game development resembles Monopoly. Fun. But not art.

Creators w/in the industry are themselves trying to figure out which camp they belong in (all while trying to keep a paycheck and often moving from company to company). Rockstar has found itself in a weird place. They create edgy, profane content that sells like gangbusters. This isn't all that surprising when the videogame market consists of 16-34yo males. Leaving aside whether dropping F bombs = Art, games will definitely mimic movies re: content...as the industry matures and is no longer dominated by 16-34yo males (we're already seeing this a bit in game length - 40hr/week workers don't want to play a game for 100 hrs - they want 8-10hrs of entertainment).

Anyways.

Great topic.
28 Dec 2004, 03:57 AM
Dipstick

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Videogaming is trying to decide if it will become an art form or not. On one hand, creators like Valve make games like Half-Life that, while not art, are clearly moving in that direction. On the other, companies like EA make games like Madden that don't pretend to be art and are actively moving away from that direction. Sports games, racers, fighters and even certain types of shooters are about 'having fun' first and 'honing teh_skillz' second. This type of game development resembles Monopoly. Fun. But not art.

Did I miss something where both types of media can not co-exist? Unlike its predecessors, the tools that videogames are created with can manyapplications. That is like saying a book can not be art because non-fiction books whose sole purpose is to inform exist.

(This may be just a semantic issue, really -- in that the question being asked is if videogames are a medium where art can be produced, and not if videogames are an artform. It may seem silly, but I think there is an important distinction there.)

-Dippy
28 Dec 2004, 04:18 AM
The_Meach

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Movies today are being sanitized for the PG-13 rating, and R is a pariah for even action filmmakers - there's no reason why AvP should've been PG-13 when all the Alien and Predator movies were rated R (at least, I think they were). This is a very bad thing for film in general, as it means director's visions are getting marginalized by the studios to turn in a bigger audience.

There is nothing wrong with this. At all.

Director's visions? :lol:

All those movies being 'dumbed down' for mass audience consumption? Cut-and-paste plots written by one screenwriter after another, then cycled through various focus groups and cleansed of anything offensive to be...consumed by fat Americans in air-conditioned theaters who are just looking for a way to waste a few hours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diff

So, in this vacuum of films with mature themes and content, will games take their place? Are games like San Andreas and Half-Life 2/Halo 2, which are essentially highly fluid interactive action movies, going to take the place of R-rated gangsta and action movies?

Let's hope not. R-rated gangsta/action movies are for 16yo males that think that stuff is cool (which it totally is). Hopefully games will become art and not just interactive, violent versions of Monopoly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diff

adults will increasingly lack films that are made and marketed for them, and will in turn start to play videogames for them.

I don't think adults are lacking films made/marketed for them. Again, violence/profanity are the reserve of adolescents, not adults. And currently the independent movie culture is seeing a great revival lately (thx Miramax) that caters exclusively to adults.

Videogames are not catering to thinking/mature adults b/c they can't (or won't). Why not? B/c creators are either convinced games are supposed to be glorified versions of Monopoly or they don't have the tools to implement their vision. Yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dipstick

Did I miss something where both types of media can not co-exist? Unlike its predecessors, the tools that videogames are created with can manyapplications. That is like saying a book can not be art because non-fiction books whose sole purpose is to inform exist.

Both approaches to the medium can co-exist (see: movies). But only if the artistic approach flourishes and survives. Comic books went through a similar phase where they were just escapist garbage. Some comics became art. But the medium (as a whole) is stuck in superhero-ville and has not broken out of the chrysalis of kitsch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dipstick

the question being asked is if videogames are a medium where art can be produced, and not if videogames are an artform. It may seem silly, but I think there is an important distinction there.)

Videogames are a medium where art might be produced. But no art has been produced yet. I'm going to go ahead and flame one of my all-time favorite game devs but it needs saying in this discussion. <flame>If the Blizzard approach to games becomes ultra-dominant, no art will come of videogaming</flame>

There is a very important distinction there.
28 Dec 2004, 05:25 AM
Omni

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Let's hope not. R-rated gangsta/action movies are for 16yo males that think that stuff is cool (which it totally is). Hopefully games will become art and not just interactive, violent versions of Monopoly.

And how do you prosose games will become art?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Videogames are a medium where art might be produced. But no art has been produced yet. I'm going to go ahead and flame one of my all-time favorite game devs but it needs saying in this discussion. <flame>If the Blizzard approach to games becomes ultra-dominant, no art will come of videogaming</flame>

There is a very important distinction there.

Why is Blizzard the antithesis of art in the videogame industry?
28 Dec 2004, 05:44 AM
The_Meach

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmniGear

And how do you prosose games will become art?

Good question! :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmniGear

Why is Blizzard the antithesis of art in the videogame industry?

"Easy to learn, hard to master."

The_Blizz's motto sums up their creative vision. Their "ouevre" consists of competitive games that resemble sport. They make games that are easily accessible, fun to play and reward the dedicated gamer. The idea that something can be 'mastered' is not an artistic idea. Does one ever really 'master' a work of art? Of course not. One wrestles endlessly with what it means for oneself and for his fellow man.

Art, in its arduous, redemptive manner, tells us what it means to be human.
28 Dec 2004, 09:36 AM
Bacon McShig

Art, in terms of certain things being defined as such, is also highly subjective.

I'm of the opinion that if photos of naked poop-smeared college students can be widely accepted as art, a lot of videogames should definitely be accepted as such.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page