MBoyd

Oh and I looked at the first page of the guy's collection. Sure, like my mother, all that matters is he loves it. But really, come on . . . The Best Of Cheaters?

cguardado

Apparently, thats what he likes. I mean, I could get flack for owning NSYNC: Live from Madison Sqaure Garden but once upon a time, when I was 8, I adored them. Most people probably own at least one dvd that makes them queston why they bought 10 years down the road...

Yakuza Bengoshi

I generally support this sentiment though I typically avoid making the argument to unreceptive audiences. It's an exercise in futility that typically leads to charges of (actual or self-aggrandizingly delusional) elitism. If some people choose to view film as only a bit of pop culture devoid of deeper value, that's their affair so far as I'm concerned.

DVDho78DTS

I completely understand what you're saying but if anyone ever has the elitist opinion about myself I'll be honored. I just try to know enough so people don't figure out I'm a complete moran.

lordwow

Looks like someone buys any DVD that breaks the $4 barrier at Best Buy. I'd give it a 12. On an undetermined scale.

THFM

Well, I never heard anybody ever tell me this. I can agree with your about making your soul better, but collecting movies is way different then art. I am a graphic designer [as you can see the link in my sig] and drawing or making something takes talent. Collecting movies do not. You just buy movies you like and add them. That takes no talent.

Silverscreenvid

The art of Monet, Dali, and Picasso is worth millions. Your stick figure drawings are probably not worth quite that much. In the art world, there does seem to be a correlation between the commercial value of a work and what critics believe its artistic merit to be.

The same is not always true in the world of cinema. Critically reviled "junk" often makes hundreds of millions at the box office and on video while more highly regarded works struggle. Film making is a business. Warner, Fox, Universal and the rest of them are not out to produce enduring art works; they are out to make money and they can't afford to ignore what people are and are not willing to pay to see.

The critics who rave about these movies have rarely been involved in the making of a movie itself. They don't act, they don't write, they don't direct. And, if critics had to rely on what people would actually pay them for their opinions in order to make a living, then Roger Ebert would probably be the only successful critic today. And Ebert's film tastes happen to be considerably more mainstream than a lot of critics.

Critics are quite often snobs who relish talking down to the people for whom they are supposedly giving their opinions. I have seen a number of "critical masterpieces" that I found to be boring and a lot more that I found hard to sit through because they require a lot of concentration. I do find them rewarding, as Shakespeare is rewarding, but, frankly, there's a lot of time that I don't want to have to work in order to appreciate a movie.

So, my own collection does include a number of cheap trashy, mindlessly fun titles as well as some of the classics. This thread has degenerated into a "snobs vs. slobs" thread, or, more precisely, "snobs vs. anti-snobs." Both sides are mainly trying to stoke their own egos by downgrading what other people enjoy and are willing to spend money to own. Hopefully, anyone who takes the time to actually check out these lists that are being posted (and I confess only to have skimmed a couple of them which confirmed my general idea about the individuals posting them) may get some good ideas about new films to check out.

cguardado

Who are you and where did you come from? I couldn't agree with you more.

Yakuza Bengoshi

Silverscreenvid, I either agree or do not take exception to any point you made.

I agree with that the following unremarkable truisms you posted capture the way the world is: (1) commercial filmmaking is a business; (2) the taste of film critics and consumers are often out of step; and (3) critics are often critical.

I understand and appreciate your approach to film viewing: you sometimes find difficult films rewarding, but other times you just want to kick back and enjoy the ride.

I think your comments about this thread being an ego-stroke fest are intended to be inflamatory to certain thread participants, while flattering the sensibilities of others that see themselves as too reasonable to be in either camp you described, but I can understand why wading in and taking that line might be appealing to you too.

Numes

This is a much different statement than what you said previously:

You basically implied that ANY movie prior to 1970 was not worth owning/watching, which is what brought on some of the harsh criticism. I think you have cleared up your stance a little bit. You have at least acknowledged that you would consider owning a pre-1970 movie, albeit very few.

For me, I don't own a huge number of movies pre-1970, but there are quite a few movies worth owning that some other people have already mentioned. As for replay value, I don't take that into consideration when purchasing a movie. I know there are many titles I will only watch once, but that doesn't make it any less worthy for me to watch/purchase. However, I recognize that for many people replay value is an important criterion.

starman9000

Yeah, tha't's the way I look at it. I pretty much have 4 different DVD collections, TV, mindless diversions, educational, and art. Yeah, they are on the same medium and there is some overlap between them, but they aren't really to be watched or enjoyed in the same way.

Yakuza Bengoshi

Collecting movies is way different than making art, but it's not necessarily way different to collecting art, especially art forms that do not rely upon their rarity for their appeal or value: collecting literature in the form of books, collecting great music in the form of CDs, collecting great films on DVDs, and collecting open-run art prints can all be art-appreciative consumerist activities of a kind.

I don't think anyone takes exception to the propositions (1) that drawing and making things takes talent and/or skill, and (2) that it doesn't take talent to be a consumer. Collecting can be an expression of taste (either actual or aspirational), but only for those who turn it into a lucrative career can it arguably be said to be a talent (but I'd argue that even here it's merely a skill not a talent).

JLBkret

For anyone who uses DVDspot, if you wanna good cry sometime take a look at the retail price of your collection, then look at what you paid for it and then think about how much you could get for it if you sold it. Now that is downright sad!

DVDho78DTS

I checked your page out which is why I used that example above and easily admit you have more talent than I do or could hope for. My point isn't that collecting movies is an art form, instead the films themselves are looked at to be art by many collectors and not just entertainment. Distinguishing which is junk and which is art is usually a consensus view not that of a single individual. I'll never claim I know more than a film student or a well-renown critic but understanding why a film like Seven Samurai is considered art by many and Batman & Robin is not really isn't that difficult. Just like with art there comes a gray area where critics and those that know most on the subject will have differing opinions but most likely won't be doing so over my stick drawings or films like Alone in the Dark or Sleepaway Camp.


I enjoyed reading your response. I don't even look at how much something makes when I determine if the film is good or not, but agree with there being a correlation with drawings and money because drawings are art and not entertainment. This just reiterates that not everyone looks at movies as art but doesn't mean it isn't an art form and can be distinguished as such. Critically acclaimed movies at the box office will never be an indication of how good the film is rather how much the audiences enjoys the subject matter.

I find a lot of movies I watch boring as well and will only keep them in my collection if I intend to watch them again, but I still can find a one time viewing rewarding and can appreciate the message with it. My collection is small after 8 years because I collect what I enjoy and not what I consider art. I'm not saying you shouldn't collect what you enjoy but don't turn your back when you ask for someone to rate your collection and they give their opinion from an art perspective and don't be ignorant as to why a film is considered art by many instead of junk. Putting your personal preferences first when it comes to collecting is how it should be but don't be naive to think your sole opinion on the film is the majority rule when it comes to the merit of it being art or not.

THFM

Here is how I look at DVD's. I buy movies, that I LOVE and will watch over and over again. Replay value is huge for me in my life. I hate spending money or time on something I am only going to do once. If I only wanted to see a movie once, I will rent it, there is no point in owning something you will NEVER use again. I have the same mentality when it comes to video games too. I'd rather own a game that lets me play it over and over instead of game you only beat once.

I admit the topic did get out of hand, but when doesn't a discussion espically if people with strong opinions. If anything I agree with what people say, in this topic, but I just thought it was silly for my intelligence to be questioned just because of the movies I own. I think a lot of people in this forum, would be pissed if somebody showed up and saw your stuff and said damn your stupid.

Yakuza Bengoshi

Did anyone actually do that?

THFM

If this isn't insulting to my intelligence or as a human being I don't know what is.

Yakuza Bengoshi

Ah, yes that's a bit of baiting there. The sheer size of your collection demonstrates you're probably older than sixteen. I think your initial position regarding pre-1970 films, which you later contradicted, was perceived by many people here as absurd, immature, or a bit of disingenuous baiting of your own, and some responded to it as such.

MrDs10e

At every message board on the internet that has anything to do with any genre of art, there are people who will say, "you are stupid if you don't appreciate __________", and on every message board on the internet, those people are still wrong, just as they are wrong in real life.

This kind of snobbery is the reason why so many don't explore art, because art snobs, whether they are movie snobs, music snobs, literature snobs, whatever, are nothing more than intellectual bullies, and so many people who step into explorations of art quickly step right back out when these bullies endeavor to tell them what their taste SHOULD be.

Art is not math. There can be no objective standard of what's good. Sure, some things have a broad common appeal, while maybe other things only appeal to a few individuals. If someone appreciates stick figures more than Monet, then for THAT person, you have no right to tell them they are wrong. You and the most people love Monet, fine. But every individual has the right to set their OWN artistic standards for what art they appreciate that brings them pleasure.

Sadly, appreciation of the arts has been reduced to subculture in America, and pushed out of the mainstream, often even MOCKED by mainstream society. The snobs think it is because "JSP" is dumb, but actually, it is because the snobs, in their desire for achieve the appearance of intellectual superiority by imposing their own standards on everyone else, have forced the arts out of the mainstream, and built a wall between themselves and the rest of us with their aggressive pseudo-intellectual posturing and bullying.

I personally do not find the OP's collection to MY taste, but it isn't MY collection, so it SHOULDN'T be to my taste. The ironic thing is that he probably gets more enjoyment out of his collection than some of the poseurs who buy and watch a bunch of movies they know deep down that they don't really like, because some bunch of film snobs say "you're dumb if you don't like this movie".

acubfaninmd

Would like to see what you all have to say about my small dvd collection. Dont want to start another thread so I am just going to use this thread. Sorry, op if you offended just figured easier to use this one then start another one.

http://www.dvdspot.com/member=cubfaninmd

cranberries fan

Acubfaninmd Nice picks in that collection of yours I give you a B- (( It would be a A if you only had some Kurosawa movies in there )).

acubfaninmd

I plan on getting Seven Samurai Criterion and other criterion's as weel/

Yakuza Bengoshi

That Kurosawa guy must be some genius if the absence of his movies can affect the grade given to a DVD collection so dramatically. How many Antonioni, Bergman, Chaplin, Dreyer, Eisenstein, Fellini, and so on, does it take to equal a Kurosawa?

cranberries fan

I am just lookin at what he has and I don't see him as one who would watch a Bergman flim (( but watch a master-flimmaker like Bergman one word comes to mind WOW!!)) but maybe Chaplin.

Gobear

Ha, ha! Thanks to MrDs10e, we're on to your little game! You spent hundreds of dollars buying Criterion and Kino titles by those directors to impress people you don't know on an Internet message, not because their films speak to you.

(looks at own collection) Well, damn. Looks like I also have been buying expensive movies that I clearly do not like or understand merely to impress MrDs10e. Foiled again!

Acubfaninmd you have a nice collection. I note that you've bought the new Stanley Kubrick box set--good stuff. You have a lot of crime films and action movies--I think your collection and mine overlap a bit.

You might want to explore classic Hollywood crime films from the 40s. I see you own Brick, so you should chek out the films it's imitating, like Double Indemnity and The Asphalt Jungle.. You also might want to watch The Lookout, another Joseph Gordon-Levitt crime movie. That guy is turning out to be one of the best actors of his generation.

My collection is in my sig if you want to evaluate it.