Well, I tried to watch LOTR.

Well, I will readily admit they have yet to make the movie I'd pay $18.00 to see. LOL

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, you pay $17.99 per month to Netflix and they send you as many movies on DVD per month, up to I think 6 at a time, as you want. That means that they send you 3 DVD's, as soon as you are done with the first you send it back to them in the prepaid envelope they give you and then they send the next one you have chosen on your list. You keep going as fast or slow as you want. They even have a cleaper option for those who don't want to watch that many films in a month, and a more costly option to watch more.If you get 6 from them in a month, you are pretty much breaking even compared to renting from Blockbuster, plus there is the great added convenience that I don't have to drive to the video store, spend a bunch of time looking for the movie I want to see, debating over which ones to get, remembering to take it back to the store so I don't get late fees, etc.I also get a much, much wider selection than is available at any walk in rental place, especially of documentaries and foreign films. I can finally see all of those old classics that I have been meaning to but haven't gotten around to.Since you say you like movies but hate movie theaters, I really think you should look into it.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-28-2004 14:10 AM

You mean they want money EVERY month?I can't compare it to Blockbuster or other such ventures because I've never rented a video. I did borrow a copy of "Behind the Green Door" once from a friend but that was many years ago and in another live.I'll tell you what I'll do though. Just for the fun of it, if they have a website that lists the films available, I'll wander over and see if there's anything I think I'd like to see.One question, will I need speakers on my computer to use the DvDs?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I can't compare it to Blockbuster or other such ventures because I've never rented a video. I did borrow a copy of "Behind the Green Door" once from a friend but that was many years ago and in another live.

---

Wow, you have said that you like movies, but everything else you say about how often you view them strongly suggests to me that you are, in fact, very indifferent about movies.Do you sort of live under a rock or something?

quote:

---

I'll tell you what I'll do though. Just for the fun of it, if they have a website that lists the films available, I'll wander over and see if there's anything I think I'd like to see.

---

Here you go:Netflix - Watch TV Shows Online, Watch Movies Online

quote:

---

One question, will I need speakers on my computer to use the DvDs?

---

No, but the sound will be better if you have them.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-29-2004 07:53 AM

so I'll try again. That may be it but I really don't think so. You're not the first person to so suggest.I do like movies. And I sincerely believe that at least one good movie has been made on average since the form began. The average may even have been slightly higher than one a year.But... and there is always that BUT.I much prefer a conversation with friends, even if the subject turns to film.I much prefer a good book, nice cigar and a cocktail on the patio.I far prefer a nice dinner with friends or alone.I find it far more enjoyable to read letters from friends and write to acquaintances.I would readily spend the price of a night at the theater for one a day at the shooting range, or a trip wandering across country discovering something new.It's far more fun spending the time I might be in a movie telling stories to little kids.While I only have a 13" TV, I have a killer stereo and a vast collection of music. An evening sitting listening to great music is far more enjoyable to me than several hours of mind numbing discomfort called a movie theater.So I don't know if I sort of live under a rock, but if so, it seems a wonderous place.And I did find the Netflix website and the Browse area. Lots of titles but I found nothing that struck my fancy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

While I agree that a lot of movies are the equivalent to fast food, film is also a medium that has produced a great deal of fabulous art that is just as great as any literature, painting, scupture, play, or musical piece.

quote:

---

And I did find the Netflix website and the Browse area. Lots of titles but I found nothing that struck my fancy.

---

Nothing that struck your fancy?Nothing?Essentially, every film in the world that is available on DVD is listed there.That must mean that you don't like cinema.Great cinema combines the best of visual, vocal, musical, and storytelling art, which are all things you mentioned enjoying in your list.Seriously jar, you are allowed to not like cinema but I am really confused when you say you like it.This is because you do not show any characteristics of someone who likes it, nor has any meaningful experience with it at all.

quote:

---

I do like movies. And I sincerely believe that at least one good movie has been made on average since the form began. The average may even have been slightly higher than one a year.

---

Jar, what do you base this opinion upon, exactly?What characteristics does a film have to possess to be considered "great" in your estimation?What are some examples?If you, for most of your life, have not viewed but a handful of films, how could you possibly be informed enough to have an opinion?

Perhaps that is true on the members access list, but the Browse section I found lists ten to twenty samples from each section. That's okay. I can live with your confusion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

For one thing it must keep my attention for the duration of the film. Let me give you two examples that might help explain my opinions. The films are Titanic and Fried Green Tomatoes.With Titanic, the complete plot, storyline and resolution was obvious from about ten minutes into the film. From that point on it was simply a bore. I was rooting for the iceburg, couldn't wait for it to end, suffered miserably, and was bored to death. I would have much rather been sitting in my dentists chair.On the other hand, FGT was great. I would even consider watching it a second time. Not enough to suffer going to a theater, but I'd at least consider it.There are books though that I return to year after year. I probably spend at a minimum, several hours daily reading. Sure, there are also few great books, but still many, many thousands. I doubt I'll make my way through all of them in this lifetime.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No offense jar, but you really don't like movies. I think it's sort of silly to put on a charade that you do.Movies were invented to be shown in the exact setting you say you hate. Up until very recently they were filmed with the assumption they will be seen in, and using techniques whose product is maximized in, the exact setting you say you hate.To say you like movies, yet hate movie houses is like saying I like books, but hate any story over 10 pages. Or that you like opera, but can't stand dramatic theatre houses.Yes, more recently it has become possible to enjoy movies within one's own home. But that is simply not how they were created, or meant to be seen (for the most part).Some directors not only assume a certain aspect ratio which is only available (until a couple years ago) within a movie theatre, some film in aspects which are still unavailable outside specially crafted theatres.Jacques Tati is a fantastic director and I had the privelege of being able to see a fully restored version of one of his films shown well beyond the 32mm range as he demanded it be shown. It was amazing to watch, and the effect without having been shown at its intended dimensions (even at regular theatre dimensions) would have been a loss.Indeed I am unsure how any Tati movie could be viewed on a 13 inch tv.I think schraf was right when she said it is okay not to like movies, but it is confusing when you then say you like movies. To act like she is the one in confusion is to be in a heavy case of denial, and resorting to projection.Just because a person likes movies, does not mean they'd have to like LOTR. Taste is taste and will very. But it is pretty obvious from everything you said, that this movie never had a chance with you because no movie stands much of a chance with you. You do not enjoy movies and you refuse to watch them in the environment they were designed for.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-29-2004 13:54 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yet Holmes, I gave one specific example of a movie I really enjoyed. So I do like movies. I definitely do not enjoy what the theaters have become, the seats uncomfortable, the patrons rude, the increased screens creating the theatric equivalent of a feedlot.There have been other movies I've enjoyed, Orfeu Negro is one I saw perhaps twenty times, in a theater and enjoyed each experience.So I do like movies. I will and have readily admitted that they certainly fall way down on my list of priorities. A play or opera, ballet or concert, book or cd would all be far above a movie on my list.Remember, this thread started with my comment on one film, LOTR. IMHO it sucks. It is you and others which expanded the thread to the genre as a whole. And looking at the genre as a whole I would say that it is approaching the quality and reliability of a McDonald's Hamburger, not particularly good, not well served and valued accordingly.But don't worry, I have similar opinions of video games. How silly.She is the one who said she was confused, not I. I am not confused about my postion at all.As I said, I can live with her confusion.Or yours

​

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, that means you like one movie, not movies. No, that means you have liked a few other movies. By your own words, in general you do not enjoy going to movies theaters and think on average only one good movie comes out a year. That means you do not like movies. This means that relatively you do not like movies that much, and the other stuff you said means it is a safer bet you will not like a movie than like one.That adds up to not liking movies. That's a generalization. Obviously it can have exceptions but the rule is true. The reason it got expanded is that you felt you had the ability to criticize the movie, but in the course of the thread you revealed that you never actually saw THE MOVIE. Indeed you don't like movies in general, as such you were unlikely to enjoy it to begin with, never saw it in a format that gave it a chance, so your opinion does not count much.I'm a guy that believes taste is taste, but when you shortcut something that bad it is sort of insulting (to the intelligence) to make a thread acting as if your opinion was a validly derived one. This coming from the guy that chose to sample LOTR at McDonalds through the cheapest no frills discount item they offer, rather than at the fine restuarant it is normally served at.Have you ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecy? Yes, she was confused, but that does not mean that you are not. The fact that you believe she is confused yet you are not is a problem. That is my point.Your position is not consistent nor accurate.What I can't figure out is why you are so desperately trying to hold on to the illusion that you like movies, when quite obviously you don't.I like a couple of Arias, I think they make a couple of good ones every half century. However I cannot stand the stuffy environs of the traditional music theatre, even though I can state a couple times I went and enjoyed myself. In general I will avoid them. Can I say I like Opera? No. I like a couple of select operas... not opera.You sir, like a few select movies... not movies.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I definitely do not enjoy what the theaters have become, the seats uncomfortable,

---

Huh? The seats I enjoy in several of the newer theaters in my area are large, have high backs which support my head, and they lean back.Much more comfortable than the ones from 20 years ago.There are even cup holders in the arms.

quote:

---

the patrons rude,

---

This I have to heartily agree with, although I tend to try to go to see films either at the earliest showing of the day during the week, when the theater is mostly empty, and a week or two after they open, so the crowds will be smaller.

quote:

---

the increased screens creating the theatric equivalent of a feedlot.

---

Why does it matter how many screens there are? How does this change your experience during the viewing of the film?Have you even been in a movie theater that was built less than 10 years ago, jar?

I have a sentimental attachment to the Lord of the Rings, and so I tend to overlook the faults of the novel.The problem with the story is that there is not quite enough human interest (the same fault that diminishes Milton's Paradise Lost, also a fantasy). I thought the best of the movies by far was The Fellowship of the Ring, which involved the excellent human interest story about Boromir.The more the book and the movie strayed into fantasy, the less interesting it was.Now, as regards the prose of the book. I myself did not find it as irritating as some apparently do, and when I was young I read through the whole thing without stopping. The prose is simple, but rather precise I thought. Many object to the many interludes in which they stop for a round of poetry. I thought that was part of the whole world that Tolkein came up with.The real merits of the book are the historical depth he gives to this fantasy and the realism-within-fantasy that he achieves (for example, the "refugees" from war).I thought the movie stayed a little TOO CLOSE to the book, and inherited some of its faults.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 16:43 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 16:57 AM

eh, a few short replies. or indeed a buddhist and not believe siddhartha was the buddha. because it's not actually anywhere in the old testament. people are described as being perfect, as well. see the job thread: job as perfect. it's on the writings of paul that say anything close to concept. it's not in judaism. (look it up if you don't believe me) and yet it stands: these groups actually existed. christianity today revolves around the worship of christ as a deity. but groups like the gnostics weren't even sure he existed. classical greeks? no. you're mixing up time periods here.but either way, it's clear that these things did not come fro jewish tradition, which was always balanced. always. women were often put in powerful roles (judith? esther?) and even when a man was in charge, he was usually dumb. i can't really take a long time to explain this, but the text, even though it's largely about men, plays one gender's faults against the other. even god, according to some jewish thought, is both male and female. it's not until paul that the idea of celibacy came into things. or that women shouldn't teach. "the fall" is a term for the story of genesis 3 in relatively modern terms. the term "fallen" as in from grace doesn't come into the bible until chapter 6 of genesis, with the nephilim (or "the fallen") and it's not talking about humans. humans had nowhere to fall FROM. they weren't in heaven, eden was on earth. so they were sent out. exhiled, maybe. fallen, no. but rather the consequences in genesis 3 are portrayed as a choice man makes (or woman, anyways). some scholars suggest that, in the story, god actually WANTED adam and eve to eat from the tree -- really. otherwise why put it there? no. just modern, pauline christianity. personally, i'm a christian, and i think i've decided that i could care less whether christ was divine of just a man -- and i'm leaning towards just a man. i'm not totally sure they even were upset. but then again, look at other biblical texts. they do get pissed off at amos for prophetizing on the temple steps, and he's not claiming to be their king. (and neither did jesus, outside of the book of john) extending the guess, it might have been a code word of sorts. it might have been easier to keep and compile their texts w/o the word babylon in them. in fact, i'm not quite sure that any book written during the babylonian exile would have said babylon in it.but either way, i think it may just be a case of allegory.