puntiniCAZpuntini

I don't think I'll pay attention to you, Matacà. Even the best Indie Rock album in history I've only heard twice, and this one is already at three, which is a lot for me. I just really don't like the proposal; it’s not that there’s something wrong, and if there is, I wouldn’t be able to pinpoint it since I basically don’t like anything (songwriting, sounds, voices, rhythms, etc.). I can tell it’s a well-made album, but nothing more. \\\ I didn't have high expectations, but I at least expected a Rock album. For Shrinebuilder, come on, you can't find that everywhere—only if you look among the records of the genre's greats. If they make another one allowing themselves more time, I think they could really make a big splash. It's not easy to get four people who are used to writing either for themselves or with others to agree in just a few days. There are no supporting acts there; they’re all top players in their own bands.

The Shrinebuilder didn’t revolutionize the year, but at least they made the record that one wanted to hear. Given the lineup, one was expecting either a Doom album or something "all their own" with various experiments, and they ended up releasing "only" a Doom record, but of excellent quality. Not to mention it was a project done amidst the myriad commitments of the musicians, all except Wino fresh off new albums and various tours. In the case of TCV, one wanted either a truly hard Rock record or something experimental. And then the new Franz Ferdinand album came out, the best of their career (by Franz Ferdinand). And those three had nothing else to do besides this album, really nothing else to do. Except memorize the discography of Franz Ferdinand, the Strokes, the Arctic Monkeys...

It's a good album, but not enough to listen to it again. It must be the expectations for sure, but the genre chosen isn't really my cup of tea; in fact, I never listen to it. For me, that "psychedelia" adds very little, and I'm also a bit dubious about that "rock n roll." Indie Rock yes, definitely Indie Rock.

By making summaries, you also surpass your levels of free theme. Right now, you are truly the best on debaser: I vote for you for the 2009 Oscar.

<< originality in certain aspects of the film can be demonstrated, >> You can only seriously demonstrate it if, as you say, you have seen every film made until 1999 to be able to evaluate it with all the data. I carefully watch a maximum of 5 films a year until the end, I don’t know about you, but even of those 5 I can't seriously say whether it’s original or not. Also because, honestly, I don't give a damn about saying it.

<< originality is subjective >> Really? It's Forrest who claims it's objective while always talking about "reality." I've been saying for 60 comments that neither originality nor derivation can be proven.

But if you don't write heavy stuff, fun discussions don't start. I'm selfish; if you didn't have fun, that's too bad, but I really laughed a lot. 90% of the time I come here to have a chat with the human case of the moment, "respect for human cases ®" has always been my favorite motto.

<< You might have PUNTINICAZPUNTINI found an original movie (for you) not knowing that it was taken from a Lithuanian novel? >> Maybe. But I've never written a review about it. If I had, and wanted to talk about originality, I would have checked where the director's inspiration came from. If I hadn't felt like doing some research, I would have simply avoided the topic, or sooner or later someone would have pointed out that it was taken from a Lithuanian novel (eventually, someone always does, maybe even after four years). I see comments as a "complement to the review," filling in any gaps (also for reasons of space and not out of ignorance), correcting any mistakes (release dates, titles, etc.), or providing a different opinion or perspective. Fifty identical comments saying "great review, I'll watch it" are nice chatter, but they don't serve any purpose for a site that, in the end, I see as aiming to provide information about works, not just "writing for the sake of writing." Of course, one could also take it as a container for free themes on artistic topics or as a social network; I see it as a repository of information.

It's not a matter of the terms used; it's a different discussion altogether because the terms change. I agree with your point, also because often I prefer a record, a book, or a movie that "innovates" something already done, making it "better." I more willingly listen to rock revivals than vintage rock, I prefer reading a noir from the day before yesterday (even better if set in the present) rather than those from the early '50s, and I prefer De Palma's Scarface over Howard Hughes'. However, I could never say that De Palma made an "original" film; at best, I would say "he added his own touch." But these mental gymnastics aren't as entertaining as Forrest.

Larrok, but I understood Muffin last week; I even wrote to him that we’re saying the same thing (even though from two opposing opinions, the theme is the same). If you read the series of repetitions, you’ll find at least ten posts where I say it. But you didn’t understand me; I’ve been laughing like crazy for a week because Forrest couldn’t wrap up in one post the thought you expressed. You have to extract it from the lines in 80 posts; you were clear in three lines. And you also “lost” another foundation of this series of repetitions: for the past three days, the point is no longer “but is this film original?”, but rather “can a judgment – in this case: whether it is original or not – be considered reality, while the other is merely a matter of perspectives?”. The Forrest here believes he can "prove a judgment"; those are things worth pondering. Also because, in the end, his (and your) point revolves around the production technique, which, as you say, can also be innovative... but to call it original seems exaggerated to me. The term "original" carries more weight than innovative. Many have innovated the light bulb, but the original light bulb is one and only one. Many can innovate the videos of the Wu-Tang Clan (because this film is an innovation of a Wu-Tang video), with lights, photography, editing, and so on, but the original Wu-Tang is one and only one. But we're digressing. The central question remains: can Forrest be convinced that he has the universally recognized judgment as correct? Can Forrest manage to condense a comprehensible thought into one post? Can Forrest use commas and periods? This and much more on Voyager, but first, the commercial.