liquid.. let's get one thing straight..

with my post regarding what you'd call my "resume" was I in no way trying to either impress you or anything to that extent.. all i'm trying to explain is that THIS is the perspective i'm looking at things from.. never once did i say, or imply that my opinion was "correct" or anything to that extent.. all i'm saying is that we're looking at things from different perspectives..

clearly you're taking this personally, which you shouldn't, and i tried to avoid making you feel that way by saying that we're just coming from two different perspectives.. leaving neither of us right, because there is no right "opinion".. that would be contradicting..

you're taking my post out of the wrong context, clearly.. while when i said what i like to enjoy in a movie, i never said that you don't enjoy those things also.. i merely said that "other people" meaning the VAST majority of the public, who go to the movies once a week, twice a month, however so often, wanna see blood, guts and gore..

you refer to making "art film after art film" and how it is impossible to be successful that way.. well i completely agree, i never said it was possible.. if you remember my original post was mainly referring to adding action into a sci-fi movie to make it less "BORING".. If you saw my movie collection, there are plenty of movies that stray quite far from being considered an "artsy" film.. Boondock Saints, The Big Lebowski the name two that i can see from here.. Those movies are fantastic, for different reasons.. They're mainly character driven flicks with either action or comedy as their genre..

and liquid, i do clearly understand where you're coming from, and i understand you're looking at the "business" of film..

again, as i said, i love plenty of films that aren't "artsy" i just need something with substance that isn't the same formula from another movie, or just made to make money.. look at film in the "art" sense.. you know, the same as a painting or a song or what have you..

The best way i can explain what im trying to say is relating it to music.. Look at let's say, i do'nt know, Green Day? They released Dookie, Nimrod, i think Insomniac it was called, all back in the 90's.. Now they were almost a sort of.. well i don't wanna say pioneers, but an experimental type of pop/punk on those albums.. They weren't really fitting any sort of mold or anything like that, they were releasing songs they wanted.. granted they had a record label who had influence on them, but more or less with your first few albums, it's not completely fabricated nonsense, it's actually the guts of the band.. what they really wanna play.. So they release those CD's.. and they were moderately successful.. and now look what they've released today.. some American Idiot nonsense.. music that sounds completely different then their real sound.. Now i know that musicians mature and that times change, but they just became SO mainstream as opposed to their non-mainstream sound back in the day, that they'd be considered a "sell-out" now.. Now fitting in with your theory, you can't make artsy album after artsy album and expect them to sell, of course.. but that's where you as a band are tested.. Do we want to play the music that we really love, that we actually can consider "art" because it is coming from within us? Or do we want to make something that will sell and that we could become famous off of.. Well there is no right or wrong answer to that, but if you were a fan of the band when they made their original albums, and then they start making these nonsense albums, then chances are that you're going to be a little turned off..

So you can consider those hardcore fans as i guess the "artsy" movie lovers.. and as soon as their artist "sells out" and adds violence and blood and sex and gore to their "art" then it's a turn off to the "purists" i guess you could say..

What i'm trying to say is that art comes from within the song writer or cinematographer or whatever the art form is, not from what the general public wants to see/hear..

so if you're a film maker, and you love making films, if you have a passion for writing plays and bringing them to motion picture, then why are you going to let anyone else influence how you make your film?

these are the type of artists i can appreciate, the types of artists who many appreciate.. and sometimes what they do may leak into the mainstream, maybe like quentin tarantino sometimes.. but do you really think he gives a rats ass who likes his movies? Hell no.. he's a pompous guy who knows he is a good writer, and loves his films, he doesn't care who DOESN'T like his films.. and that's why he is awesome, because he has a passion for what he does.. Now when Tarantino makes some CGI movie that has Hayden Christensen and Jessica Alba as the leads in it, that revolves around action and sex, then i'd look at him in a different light..

there is a large spectrum of genres and types of movies.. and they all appeal to different audiences, obviously.. it just so happens that we're on different positions of the spectrum.. that doesn't make any of us better than the other, we just enjoy different things.. and believe me, i am quite used to people not having the same likes as me, and i'm fine with that.. i'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, or that you have bad taste, don't take it the wrong way "friendo"..

and you're an English graduate, that's great.. correct all of my posts if it makes you feel better.. i'm a CIS major who could write a virus that i could make you run without even knowing it, without even talking to me, or clicking anything, that when you took it to the computer store to have it repaired it would just keep showing the computer technician the middle finger when they tried to re-install windows (or whatever OS you use) making it impossible to repair.. but what do i care? what are we comparing who's dick is bigger?