BF2S Forums Back in the day.

Braddock wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

Me: I have an English degree, including 3 hours of study in Shakespeare

How on earth did you get an English degree with that little Shakespeare?
I probably did 30 hrs for the O level.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You weren't serious?
Even in his own medium, film, Cameron is nothing special.
In response:
Norman Schwarzkopf was a better General than Alexander. Duh he had tanks and shit.

Cameron's movies are
A) Far more popular than Shakespeares
B) Made more money than Shakespeares
C) Much better stories than Shakespeares
D) Friggin understandable without the need for a book to translate
E) See A

Hey, I like Cameron but let's face it, they aint gonna be teaching his work in schools in years to come. He has made some great films over the years (Aliens, Terminator) but when it comes to the art of filmmaking he hasn't really been that much of a visionary. I reckon his legacy will be remembered more for his contribution to the field of special effects, a field in which he truly has pushed the envelope.

Uzique wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

Me: I have an English degree, including 3 hours of study in Shakespeare

How on earth did you get an English degree with that little Shakespeare?
I probably did 30 hrs for the O level.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You weren't serious?
Even in his own medium, film, Cameron is nothing special.
In response:
Norman Schwarzkopf was a better General than Alexander. Duh he had tanks and shit.

Cameron's movies are
A) Far more popular than Shakespeares
B) Made more money than Shakespeares
C) Much better stories than Shakespeares
D) Friggin understandable without the need for a book to translate
E) See A

Tanks and shit, doesn't mean anything if the guy commanding them hasn't got a clue. Its not like Schwarzkopf was fighting horses with his tanks was it? Comparing in terms of technology avaliable at the time, Norman faced tanks, Alexander faced horses and other ancient brickabrack. When in that situation, Norman was better because he got his job done quicker.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

ahahahahahahahahahhhhhhhhhhhahahahaha

ahahahahahaha
hahaha


hahaha
haa
ha
hhhh
aa

M.O.A.B wrote:

Name me the most succesful movie of all time and its director.

FatherTed wrote:

is this serious?

DrunkFace wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Name me the most succesful movie of all time and its director.

Gone With the Wind - Victor Fleming

I fail to see your point?

DrunkFace wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Gone With the Wind - Victor Fleming

I fail to see your point?

Apparently Shakespeare's seen as the ultimate director/storyteller when none or few of his works tops the most popular in the world.

Well to be fair, cinema didn't exist in 16th and 17th century. But his work 400 years on is still being played in theaters around the world so he can't be all that bad.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
But fuck me.... if it was up to me I'd burnt he whole fucking lot of his shit arse boring work.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-12-11 11:22:14)

Uzique wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Well to be fair, cinema didn't exist in 16th and 17th century. But his work 400 years on is still being played in theaters around the world so he can't be all that bad.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
But fuck me.... if it was up to me I'd burnt he whole fucking lot of his shit arse boring work.

The guy had talent no question, but his work to me is outdated in comparison to current and modern storytellers. People like H.G Wells, George Orwell, Frederick Forsyth, Stephen King, Jar Tolkien produced much more compelling works.

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhaa
hahaahahahaha
aahahahahahaha
ahahahahahaha
lolololol
lmalmaomalmaomaoma
roflroflrofl

Dude, did you pass sixth grade?

Shakespeare was a writer and a playwright, not a Hollywood director. Are you seriously judging his success based on gross box office earnings or Hollywood awards? HAHAHA. Shakespeare thrashes the shit out of every modern Hollywood director and 'writer' of our time, without any doubt. George Orwell and James Joyce are my favourite authors and they are hugely talented writers on their own merit, but Jesus Christ it's just not even comparable. Get a clue.

Uzique wrote:

Dude, did you pass sixth grade?

DrunkFace wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Shakespeare thrashes the shit out of every modern Hollywood director and 'writer' of our time, without any doubt. George Orwell and James Joyce are my favourite authors and they are hugely talented writers on their own merit, but Jesus Christ it's just not even comparable. Get a clue.

Convince me. What makes Shakespeares works so far superior to anything done since or prior?
And more importantly how do you judge how good a piece of work is?

Uzique wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Shakespeare thrashes the shit out of every modern Hollywood director and 'writer' of our time, without any doubt. George Orwell and James Joyce are my favourite authors and they are hugely talented writers on their own merit, but Jesus Christ it's just not even comparable. Get a clue.

Convince me. What makes Shakespeares works so far superior to anything done since or prior?
And more importantly how do you judge how good a piece of work is?

It's no so far superior to 'everything' ever done since, unequivocally. But the influence and importance of his works on what is today's modern literature is huge, almost unrivalled in the canon of Western literature. I'm sorry but you cannot compare Shakespeare's folio to the Lord of the Rings trilogy or a novella like Animal Farm. It's ludricrous. Comparing a playwright and poet to a Hollywood film director is even more crazy- especially with the argument that you "don't need a guide book to understand it"... guide-book? Shakespeare's works are the texts, the books- is this level of dumbassery a purposeful troll attempt or what?

Critics don't 'judge' how good a piece of work is on an objective scale, but what is certainly accepted is that there are MANY things to be said about Shakespeare's works; whether you approach from a theoretical angle or from a New Critic perspective, there's simply so much depth and complexity to each one of his poems/plays that is often unmatched by modern writers and other contemporaries. If you don't like Shakespeare, I don't really care to 'convince' you otherwise... if the style and the format do not suit you, fair enough. But, for example, Shakespeare's sonnets are some of the finest Sonnets, in my opinion. Doesn't matter whether you appreciate it or not out of personal taste... they are masterful.

What makes him a "Messiah" of literature in the Western canon? Probably his impact and influence, the way that he revived the iambic pentameter and the use of verse which influenced in some way just about every generation of poets and writers onwards; it is, after all, down to the likes of Shakespeare and Chaucer that the iambic pentameter is considered the 'native' metre and rhythm of the English language-- they brought and adapted Italian/continental ideas and integrated it into the most complex and exciting language of the age. Basically, do not compare the likes of Shakespeare's achievements and contributions to the canon/culture to the fucking dipshit director of Titanic. That makes you the definition of a philistine.

TL;DR - Don't compare a genius playwright/poet to an artisan director and film-maker. You'd have more of a point comparing Tiger Woods to Jenna Jameson.

ghettoperson wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Name me the most succesful movie of all time and its director.

I could name you the most boring movie of all time and it's director, if you like.

Titanic, James Cameron.

M.O.A.B wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Name me the most succesful movie of all time and its director.

I could name you the most boring movie of all time and it's director, if you like.

Titanic, James Cameron.

I take it you haven't seen Romeo and Juliet

Uzique wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

I could name you the most boring movie of all time and it's director, if you like.

Titanic, James Cameron.

I take it you haven't seen Romeo and Juliet

HAHAHA THIS IS THE MOST IRONIC THING I HAVE EVER READ.

From my edit, because you'll no doubt be baffled by a long-post:

"I never said appreciating Shakespeare makes a person intelligent, nor implied it. I'm answering your questions based on what is considered to be the formation of the Western canon, not on some whimsical 'Omg don't diss Shakespeare he's 4 smart people only' reasoning. Feel free to read something like The Short Oxford History of English Literature if you're really interested in discovering why he was so significant during his era and later on- it's a great reference and background text for understanding concisely the various phases and movements in English literature. If you're not willing to actually comprehend the solid academic and canonical facts behind his veneration, then don't bother posting... it's basically mindless trolling. I don't even think he's "the best thing ever", I'm just rightfully pointing out that you are an insanely huge dumbass for claiming the director of Titanic is more talented/more worthy of praise; they're not even in the same business."

Intelligent, sophisticated, whatever. Same bullshit. Read a book.

Oh and in literary circles, he is as popular as sliced bread. You're talking from a mainstream culture perspective with no real interest in literature. Well, that's like saying Aldrin and Armstrong were shit astronauts because you're not a NASA employee, or calling Plato, Socrates and Aristotle stupid because you don't have the faintest clue about philosophy.

Uzique wrote:

I would semi-respect MOAB's opinion on cinema and film if he even had a decent or qualified taste. Even when he draws abstract and pointless comparisons between directors and Shakespeare, he still epically fails by having the wankest taste in media imaginable. Titanic and Romeo & Juliet? What are you going to revere next, Harry Potter?

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-12-11 13:45:18)

Uzique wrote:

Entertainment, now? Yes, because 21st century cinema entertainment has tons to do with the writing and theatre of Shakespeare's age. I'm insulting you because I am sure you are purposefully being a dumbass. I could care less about 'literary circles', your fundamental point of comparison is so flawed I cannot exert any more effort to point it out. You're a hideous thinker. Just re-read this a second to fully absorb your failure, after all it seems to be the way that you assess 'successful' entertainment media:

Moabthewashpot wrote:

A) Far more popular than Shakespeares
B) Made more money than Shakespeares
C) Much better stories than Shakespeares
D) Friggin understandable without the need for a book to translate
E) See A

A) Far more popular? No. Way. Not even contestable. Half-arsed modern director does not come near to Shakespeare in terms of worldwide mainstream popularity; come and argue this point when they teach the finer points of DiCaprio's character to kids in Year 7.

B) Made more money? I'd probably be willing to bet that Shakespeare's complete works in all of their outlet forms has made 1,000,000x more money than Cameron- how do you equate box office takings of the last 10 years against millions of theatre productions and millions of book sales over the last 500 years? But still, I digress... you do not evaluate and appreciate 'entertainment' as an artform based on how much money it makes; by your logic, Girls Aloud are the modern-equivalent of Oscar Wilde. No, non, nein.

C) Much better stories? Are you kidding? Simplistic, predictable crowd-pleasing fodder compared to plotlines and poetic conceits that still have critics and academics debating half a century later? Same sentiment as point A: come back and argue the point when A-Level students nationwide have to write essays on the intricacies of Titanic's amazing-awesome-complex plot.

D) Understandable without a book to translate. Not even going to answer this one, try harder next time. I'll point you in the direction of a primary-school teacher for the 'reading' part, but after that you're on your own buddy. Shakespeare's creativity is his writing, I'm baffled by this comment because it derives from your hugely-flawed comparison/logic.

So I've played your ball-game on this one, ignoring the 'real' point that you were pushing about literary canon formation (it was too "sophisticated" and limited to "intelligent" people I guess, oops) and I've responded to your ridiculous assertion in the 'Listing: Arguments For Dummies' format. I look forward to your doubling-back and rephrasing shortly <3.