Jump to content

Newbie question


George Ebersole

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
Can one of you experts give me a small list of films that were shot with a RED?

Define "Film".

If you mean "Films you have more than a vague chance of seeing in your local cinema or video store", at present there really are none.

 

As far as I am aware Soderbergh's "Che" has no mainstream distribution secured. Since the film is about four hours long, in Spanish with subtitles, has not received much positive critical response, and has been criticised for its lack of factual accuracy, it quite likely never will.

 

There are all sorts of low budget RED projects in the works, which would otherwise would probably have been shot on HD videotape. I would be very interested to see some of them just to see how the RED performs in real-world situations, (particularly operated by sort of people who frequent certain frums:-) but I seriously doubt many of them will ever see the light of day anywhere near me.

 

A while back I asked here if anybody could give me examples of RED-originated footage (ads, docos, anything really) currently being shown on Australian TV. Apart from some horribly degraded and very transient RED footage used in the local Seven Network's Beijing Olympics promos, I have yet to see a single frame of real-world RED footage. At least, that I know about. (Note: Downloads are NOT real-world footage.)

 

So far there has been sizzle overkill and very little steak.

 

"How does the RED compare with the D20 or Genesis?"

Good question. It probably gives a sharper picture, but for all practical purposes it will probably look very similar, since there is currently little call for >2K resolution. It is a much cheaper camera to buy, but it doesn't fit into existing tape-based workflows, which is a lot more of a hurdle than many people realize.

 

Eventually all this will become clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while back I asked here if anybody could give me examples of RED-originated footage (ads, docos, anything really) currently being shown on Australian TV. Apart from some horribly degraded and very transient RED footage used in the local Seven Network's Beijing Olympics promos, I have yet to see a single frame of real-world RED footage. At least, that I know about. (Note: Downloads are NOT real-world footage.)

 

Did you not see the RED music video that aired during the Super Bowl? It looked pretty freakin good when compared to the other spots running in 720P. I was also watching ABC one night and saw the Old Navy spots that were shot on RED. It looked much better then other spots because it was so grain free. That said, I can often tell when there is CGI involved in spots because they don't seem to try matching the grain of film in the CGI stuff. Of course, it could also make a difference of what the footage was telecined on.

 

BTW, why don't you take some of the 1080p spots that are on RedUser and play them out on a TV? If a broadcaster is going to degrade the image, it's gonna happen just as much to a 35mm source as a RED source.

 

Matthew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There are quite a few in production, post production, and pre-production that will get theatrical distribution. The question is how wide? I'm sure a couple will show on quite a few screens but most will probably get the NY, LA, Miami, Chicago type of release.

Just as an example: David Mullen is currently shooting a movie on the Red, I'm about to start one, and a friend of mine just finished one. And all of these will have some kind of theatrical I'm sure.

So there are some on the way, but very few, if any, that have already been released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many in production (remember we just started shipping 8 months ago).

 

"Guerrilla"- Steven Soderbergh starring Benecio del Toro- completed

"The Argentine"- Steven Soderbergh starring Benecio del Toro- completed

"The Informant"- Steven Soderbergh starring Matt Damon- in production

"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"- Peter Hyams starring Michael Douglas- in production

"The Game"- Neveldine and Taylor starring Gerard Butler- in post production

"Crank 2" Neveldine and Taylor starring Jason Stratham- filming

"Knowing"- Alex Proyas starring Nicholas Cage- post production

"District 9"- Neill Blomkamp- in production

 

parts of :

 

"Jumper"- Doug Liman starring Hayden Christensen- released

For those that discount this one, please watch Doug Liman's interview on red.com

 

many more that are prepping and several I'm forgetting.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the commercial side, the following are now being shot on RED.

 

Jaguar

Toyota

Mazda

Nissan

Gatorade

Target

7-11

Subway

Allstate

 

Also...

 

"Manure"- David Mullen starring Billy Bob Thornton

 

plus several more that we have been told we cannot mention yet.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Thanks all. I was reading about the kind of resolution the RED is supposed to be able to capture and reproduce. I was wondering what had been shot with it, and wanted to have a gander.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander
Did you not see the RED music video that aired during the Super Bowl?

 

In Australia, US "football" does not rank that highly as something to be watched to be honest. Especially when it comes on at weird hours in the morning or middle of afternoon.

 

When you have real contact sports without all of that padding, the NFL is tame.

 

Have a look at "footy", Aussie rules, Adelaide Crows, etc

or rugby, my fav team, the New Zealand All Blacks

 

Jonah Lomu in his prime, could thrash any NFL running back.

Edited by Glen Alexander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
In Australia, US "football" does not rank that highly as something to be watched to be honest. Especially when it comes on at weird hours in the morning or middle of afternoon.

I think you can only see it live on "50 channels and there's nothin' on" cable over here.

 

The sight of those lads in their crash helmets and Buzz Lightyear getups tends to provoke more amusement here than excitement. Besides, exactly WHO do you expect us to cheer for?

 

American Football has quite a lot on common with European Football, in regard to the number of fatal injuries sustained, the main difference is that in Europe it tends to be the spectators rather than the players. Here, fatalities or even serious injuries are extremely rare, on both sides of the fence.

 

I've heard that watching Australian Football in the wee hours is surprisingly popular with sleepless American women. I suppose it's all the tight shorts, hairy legs and lack of blood and fatalities :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Thanks all. I was reading about the kind of resolution the RED is supposed to be able to capture and reproduce. I was wondering what had been shot with it, and wanted to have a gander.

So do I, and so do quite a lot of industry people I know who remain as baffled as I am.

 

As far as resolution goes, very few people will have access to 4K display devices of any sort, and 4K DI is still so expensive that even big budget films like Indy 4 and Iron Man only used 2K. In theory 4K downconverted to 2K still should look better than native 2K, but you still need top dollar Post people to get the benefit to come out the other end.

 

None of the responses here or earlier have been of any real help. I'd like to be able to say: "Well, this Ad or that show was shot with a RED camera," so telling me about American commercials or footage that has been and gone is not a lot of help.

 

Are the US ads mentioned shown in Australia?

 

That IMDB list is a bit of a worry; have you had a close look at the details of some of those productions?

 

What is likely to happen is that the phrase "Shot on RED" is soon going to be as meaningless as "Composed an a PC" (or Mac). Exactly the same camera will be used for seven figure productions and seven dollar productions.

 

So will this result in a paradigm shift, or a trainwreck? Who knows. Certainly not the RED fanboys.

 

Either way, established players in the industry would like at least a shot at predicting which way the wind will blow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Also...

 

"Manure"- David Mullen starring Billy Bob Thornton

 

 

Jim

Plus the Australian made feature "The Nothing Men" (as featured on the RED.com website!) and which may yet be the first all-RED feature to get a distribution deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander
I've heard that watching Australian Football in the wee hours is surprisingly popular with sleepless American women. I suppose it's all the tight shorts, hairy legs and lack of blood and fatalities :lol:

 

Oh, yeah like that player from St. Kilda, the commentators call him "the G train", others call him "the G string" ha ha ha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So do I, and so do quite a lot of industry people I know who remain as baffled as I am.

 

As far as resolution goes, very few people will have access to 4K display devices of any sort, and 4K DI is still so expensive that even big budget films like Indy 4 and Iron Man only used 2K. In theory 4K downconverted to 2K still should look better than native 2K, but you still need top dollar Post people to get the benefit to come out the other end.

 

None of the responses here or earlier have been of any real help. I'd like to be able to say: "Well, this Ad or that show was shot with a RED camera," so telling me about American commercials or footage that has been and gone is not a lot of help.

 

Are the US ads mentioned shown in Australia?

 

That IMDB list is a bit of a worry; have you had a close look at the details of some of those productions?

 

What is likely to happen is that the phrase "Shot on RED" is soon going to be as meaningless as "Composed an a PC" (or Mac). Exactly the same camera will be used for seven figure productions and seven dollar productions.

 

So will this result in a paradigm shift, or a trainwreck? Who knows. Certainly not the RED fanboys.

 

Either way, established players in the industry would like at least a shot at predicting which way the wind will blow.

Keith; I was curious about Indy 4. I saw it the other night at a local theatre, and it looked like it was shot digitally. But, to my eyes, the resolution compared to a good high grade 35mm stock just wasn't there. But that's just my opinion, and I'm basing that off of the original Raiders of the Lost Ark film.

 

I watched "Two Mules for Sister Sara" and "Braveheart" last week, and compared their footage with some digitally shot films. It seems like raw footage from the camera or from a hard disk looks really crisp, but when its transferred to film for distribution in the theatres, to me at least, it looks like it loses quite a bit of resolution.

 

All the data on the RED says that this shouldn't be an issue, and, again based on the kind of resolution it's supposed to give, I'm wondering why people don't drop the Alta Vista, D20 and the rest to shoot on a RED. Is the camera that new?

 

But, like I've announced on other threads, I've been out of film and video for ten years, and am trying to get back in, so I'm pretty wet behind the ears. Still, I want to get as much info here and elsewhere as I can so I don't look like a complete dumb-&*$% when I walk back onto a set.

 

p.s. I've seen Australian Rules football, and that is not a sport for the feint of heart.

Edited by George Ebersole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith; I was curious about Indy 4. I saw it the other night at a local theatre, and it looked like it was shot digitally. But, to my eyes, the resolution compared to a good high grade 35mm stock just wasn't there. But that's just my opinion, and I'm basing that off of the original Raiders of the Lost Ark film.
Indy 4 was shot on 35mm Anamorphic.

 

All the data on the RED says that this shouldn't be an issue, and, again based on the kind of resolution it's supposed to give, I'm wondering why people don't drop the Alta Vista, D20 and the rest to shoot on a RED. Is the camera that new?
There's quite a bit more to cameras than just resolution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as high resolution displays Costco Wholesale is selling 24 inch computer monitors with 2560 x 1600 resolution which is 4 times the resolution of 720p and double the resolution of 1080p for $1000. This will be perfect for Scarlet who only need to see their footage in 3K. Toshiba is introducing a 84 inch 4k television but these are handbuilt so they cost $50,000. Once mass production kicks in the costs will fall and these televisios will cost 4 times the cost of a 1080p television or $4000 or a 42 inch 4k television for $2000. Next year Red will be introducing their 4K player for a thousand dollars. Slowly but surely there will be 4K content available. As the prices of HD televisions fall manufacturers will be lookong for the next generation 4k displays in order to upsell the consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Indy 4 was shot on 35mm Anamorphic.

 

There's quite a bit more to cameras than just resolution.

Really? I guess the theatre I went to had a bad print or something, because it didn't look all that sharp... maybe the projector was out of focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Keith; I was curious about Indy 4. I saw it the other night at a local theatre, and it looked like it was shot digitally. But, to my eyes, the resolution compared to a good high grade 35mm stock just wasn't there. But that's just my opinion, and I'm basing that off of the original Raiders of the Lost Ark film.

 

You can read my comments on it here.

 

I saw a very high quality digital projection and apart from a few dynamic range niggles I thought the quality was extremely good. However there is digital projection and there is digital projection. This was in a brand new installation with a new projector lamp, and a projectionist who used binoculars to focus!

 

Most film releases are going to be at minimum a fourth generation copy of the original negative, whereas with DI to (good!) digital projection, you are more or less effectively projecting the original negative. I've said it before and I'll say it again, film projection will disappear long before film origination!

 

 

All the data on the RED says that this shouldn't be an issue, and, again based on the kind of resolution it's supposed to give, I'm wondering why people don't drop the Alta Vista, D20 and the rest to shoot on a RED. Is the camera that new?

 

Alta Vista? You mean CineAlta?

OK, first off, the CineAlta is a TV camera, despite what George Lucas and a few other chuckleheads tried to tell us. Star Wars II was captured on 1440 x 800 pixel videotape. Better than film? Super-8 maybe.

The CineAlta/F900/F950 etc are excellent for making TV programs, mainly because they were designed from the ground up to fit the workflow of TV studios. Movie cameras they are not.

 

Despite the hype, the D-20 and Genesis are still fairly minor players in the scheme of things, and the Genesis is really just a single-chip version of the F950, primarily a TV camera, albeit one that can take 35mm cinematography lenses.

 

The RED has only been shipping for about 9 months, the first 100 made were recalled, and shiping seems stalled around the 1700 mark. Still a lot of cameras, but how many will ever get to do anything worthwhile is anybody's guess. Their biggest problem is that they've tried to make something that gives the quality of 35mm film origination, but with the convenience of a video camera. They haven't really produced either.

 

And then there are the endless software upgrades, currently "build 16". Apparently for the first time, operators will now be able to accurately monitor what the CMOS chip is doing exposure-wise, you know, like you have been able to do with Betacam etc for 25 years or so:-)

 

The RED does not easily fit into existing Post Production workflows, but as soon as anybody brings that up on any of these forums, they get hammered by the fanboys desperate to "explain" the sequence of workarounds. Which eventually starts to add up to: "Oh that's right, that's why we use film!" (or HDCAM etc).

 

Yes, there are plenty of bright-eyed broom closet Post startups ready willing and able to handle .R3D files, but the thing is, can they EDIT?! You know, like that famous photo: "Microsoft 1978 - would YOU have invested?"

 

All of these issues can be dealt with of course, but they do have a way of mounting up.

 

It's beginning to sound to me (and quite a few of my colleagues) that the Epic is really the camera the RED should have been. (And Jannard & Co are dreaming if they think nobody else can build a camera like that). RED have built the IBM PCXT of video cameras, Epic will be the '386 but somebody else will probably build the Macintosh:-).

 

But, like I've announced on other threads, I've been out of film and video for ten years, and am

 

trying to get back in, so I'm pretty wet behind the ears. Still, I want to get as much info here and elsewhere as I can so I don't look like a complete dumb-&*$% when I walk back onto a set.

Well same here, more or less. (Don't worry, most productions currently DON'T use REDs). Naturally it's good to know something about the beasts but as you'll discover, hard and useful information can be really difficult to hold of. (For a start, why not download the users manual from www.red.com)

 

Video downloads are generally a waste of time; all people want is everyday accessible examples, like a list of TV commericals that were shot on RED. But whenever I have asked straight out for examples all I have gotten is bizarre responses to the effect that "The important thing is that you are seeing RED ads and not even noticing." What does that mean? There are ads with superb image quality (obviously shot on 35mm film) and others that look they were shot on a Handycam!

It begins to resemble the old adage: "To lose one husband is a tragedy, losing two begins to sound like carelessness!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander
Alta Vista? You mean CineAlta?

 

ha ha alta vista... the search engine without all of the google cookies or javascript urchins tracking your every click. they have a great ftp search engine

 

Yes, there are plenty of bright-eyed broom closet Post startups ready willing and able to handle .R3D files, but the thing is, can they EDIT?! You know, like that famous photo: "Microsoft 1978 - would YOU have invested?"

 

what are you on about? all of the digital work flows i've read about dump massive amount of sequential image files, they don't write to a standard "movie container". i can pull-in any bit-dept dpx or any other image format file with matlab and manipulate the images any way i want. matlab has brilliant tools for editing any kinds of images period. the user interface is geared more towards scientific/engineering types rather than typical adobe users.

 

if you want to multiplex 24bit/192khz/7.1 DTS with 14-bit dpx into a full high-res "movie container", now that's a tougher problem even with time codes.

 

for a simplier solution, if you have the money, buy a couple national instrument software packages NI Vision.

 

here's part of the matlab code to pull in any dpx file...

 

% DPX image file reader (SMPTE 268M-2003 Reference)

%

% Originaly from:

% © 2006 Jeff Mather, Mathworks

% Extended by:

% © 2007 Amilcar Lucas, IDA TU-Braunschweig

% Chopped and hacked by:

% © 2008 Glen Alexander, Gestalt Prod

%

% Convert the buffer to an array of output pixels.

%

% DPX files can also contain bit-depths that cause pixel samples not to end

% on byte boundaries (e.g., 10-bit and 12-bit images) plus 14bit either LI or BI

switch bitDepth

case 8

pixels = buffer((startOfPixels + 1):endOfPixels);

case 10

% SMPTE 268M-2003 Reference

% Fig. C.3 10-bit components filled to 32-bit boundary

pixels = typecast(buffer((startOfPixels + 1):endOfPixels), 'uint32');

pixels = swapFcn(pixels);

if (numChannels == 1) % grayscale

% do some bit splicing to extract the gray information

pixel0 = uint16(bitshift(pixels, -02, 10));

pixel1 = uint16(bitshift(pixels, -12, 10));

pixel2 = uint16(bitshift(pixels, -22, 10));

% Rearrange the data to follow MATLAB's conventions.

pixels = [pixel0 pixel1 pixel2];

pixels = reshape(pixels', [columns, rows])';

else % RGB

% Rearrange the data to follow MATLAB's conventions.

pixels = reshape(pixels, [columns, rows])';

% do some bit splicing to extract the color information

pixelsb = uint16(bitshift(pixels, -02, 10));

pixelsg = uint16(bitshift(pixels, -12, 10));

pixelsr = uint16(bitshift(pixels, -22, 10));

% pack it back to a matlab friendly array

clear pixels;

pixels(:,:,3) = pixelsb;

pixels(:,:,2) = pixelsg;

pixels(:,:,1) = pixelsr;

end

% return because we do not need the normal function flow in this case

return

case {12, 14}

% SMPTE 268M-2003 Reference

% Fig. C.5 12-bit components filled to 16-bit boundary

% 14-bit components filled to 16-bit boundary

pixels = typecast(buffer((startOfPixels + 1):endOfPixels), 'uint16');

pixels = swapFcn(pixels);

% do some bit splicing to extract the information

pixels = uint16(bitshift(pixels, int8(bitDepth)-16, bitDepth));

if (numChannels == 1) % grayscale

% Rearrange the data to follow MATLAB's conventions.

pixels=reshape(pixels, [columns, rows]);

else % RGB

% Rearrange the data to follow MATLAB's conventions.

pixels=reshape(pixels', [3, columns, rows]);

pixels=permute(pixels,[3,2,1]);

end

% return because we do not need the normal function flow in this case

return

case 16

pixels = typecast(buffer((startOfPixels + 1):endOfPixels), 'uint16');

pixels = swapFcn(pixels);

otherwise

error(['Unsupported bit-depth: ' num2str(bitDepth) '-bits per component']);

end

% Rearrange the data to follow MATLAB's conventions.

pixels = reshape(pixels, [numChannels, columns, rows]);

pixels = permute(pixels, [3 2 1]);

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Alta Vista? You mean CineAlta?

OK, first off, the CineAlta is a TV camera, despite what George Lucas and a few other chuckleheads tried to tell us. Star Wars II was captured on 1440 x 800 pixel videotape. Better than film? Super-8 maybe.

 

Only occassionally dipping into this sub-forum (it's too often radioactively contaminated... intellectually, that is), it was quite nice to read an honest post her.

 

As regards Super 8:

Based on the MTF of S8's 7217 which responds with at least 100 lp/mm at 20% in the green layer, one could ideally expect a minimum resolution of 1072x802 pixel with a projection frame of 4.01 by 5.36mm, and 1130x844 pixel with a camera frame of 4.22 by 5.65mm. The new 7265 is not far behind on that. Even the old K-40 stated a resolving power of 70 lp/mm at 20% (i.e. 750x561 to 791x591 pixel), beating DigiBeta easily...

 

But trust me, no videographer wants to read or hear that Super 8 has a higher resolving power and greater colour depth than video gear 500times more expensive. All they see in their mind to is crappy home movies. If they oogle when seeing RED footage, their heads might explode seeing S8 footage adequately scanned at HD or 2K on a Rank and projected in a serious screening room (and those get increasingly rare, too).

 

 

It begins to resemble the old adage: "To lose one husband is a tragedy, losing two begins to sound like carelessness!"

 

 

To provide you with Oscar Wilde's original:

"To loose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to loose both looks like carelessness."

 

And while we are at the importance of being earnest on matters discussing digital video, the quest for actual footage, and the resulting opinions and posts formed and expressed nowadays thanks to marketing efforts that unsubstantiately inflate those cam's contribution to cinema and innovation for cinematography rather than practical experience on set or location, reminds me of another Wilde:

 

"Ignorance is a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone."

 

And so we will think of current video gear in 5 years time, as we now ridicule U-matic ENG, which was once regarded as far superior to 16mm & 35mm VNF cine-films... oh, the blunder...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander

Using Oscar Wilde's quotations as something to reflect on as having deep meaningful impact of the nature of humanity is dubious, you might as well use Homer Simpson, he's funnier.

 

H. Simpson

"14% of all people know that you can use statistics to prove anything you want."

 

"Bart, with $10,000, we'd be millionaires! We could buy all kinds of useful things like...love!"

 

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

 

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman."

 

"You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot like a woman. You just have to read the manual and press the right buttons."

 

"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."

 

"Lisa, Vampires are make-believe, like elves, gremlins, and eskimos."

 

"The three little sentences that will get you through life.

Number 1: Cover for me.

Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss!

Number 3: It was like that when I got here."

 

"All my life I've had one dream, to achieve my many goals."

 

"Beer: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

 

"Do I know what rhetorical means?"

 

"I'm no supervising technician, I'm a technical supervisor. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Using Oscar Wilde's quotations as something to reflect on as having deep meaningful impact of the nature of humanity is dubious, you might as well use Homer Simpson, he's funnier.

 

This RED forum astonishes me on an ever increasing number of levels B) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander

Hmm... Oscar Wilde.. imprisoned for two years of hard labour after being convicted of the offence of "gross indecency."

 

Oscar Wilde who wrote, "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it," in referring to relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas, an athlete and a poet.

 

Yes Oscar Wilde. In describing his own sexual identity, Wilde used the term "Socratic," todays terms he would be called a pedophile.

 

yes Oscar Wilde, who entered into a shame wedding and had two kids merely to mask his own sexuality.

Edited by Glen Alexander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Ah, what would the cloud be without a good cinealta, eh, cinevia, eh, altavista search... This clearly disproves Wilde's theatrical writing that "the theory of modern education is radically unsound"...; but then he also said that "luckily, education produces no effect whatsoever" in the same sentence.

 

Glen, my friend, I think you should first learn to do your research soundly and with substance, then come to terms with comparative methodologies (please bear in mind that if Oscar Wilde would life today, he, his sexuality and work/life-pursuits would be regarded as normally middle-class not transgressing any current laws in the UK - oh, we are all so decadent little pervs here on this islands :lol: ), and then read through post-/structuralism, above all Lacan and Derrida (all, of course, misogynist perverts of questionable standing throughout their life, which, luckily for humanity, came to an end some while ago, thus no longer bothering the few remaining purified souls of natural morals!), something for which you are well-placed in France, by the way, before continuing to miss the point in making arguments for ... well, whatever it is you are actually arguing for?!? :D .

 

 

BTW, and this re. 'motivation': Please don't bear a longer-term brawl against me because I explained the nature of this forum to you in this thread over there after you got a bit ... insisting against the good nature of John Holland, will you? Thanks. No hard feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander
Ah, what would the cloud be without a good cinealta, eh, cinevia, eh, altavista search... This clearly disproves Wilde's theatrical writing that "the theory of modern education is radically unsound"...; but then he also said that "luckily, education produces no effect whatsoever" in the same sentence.

 

Glen, my friend, I think you should first learn to do your research soundly and with substance, then come to terms with comparative methodologies (please bear in mind that if Oscar Wilde would life today, he, his sexuality and work/life-pursuits would be regarded as normally middle-class not transgressing any current laws in the UK - oh, we are all so decadent little pervs here on this islands :lol: ), and then read through post-/structuralism, above all Lacan and Derrida (all, of course, misogynist perverts of questionable standing throughout their life, which, luckily for humanity, came to an end some while ago, thus no longer bothering the few remaining purified souls of natural morals!), something for which you are well-placed in France, by the way, before continuing to miss the point in making arguments for ... well, whatever it is you are actually arguing for?!? :D .

 

 

BTW, and this re. 'motivation': Please don't bear a longer-term brawl against me because I explained the nature of this forum to you in this thread over there after you got a bit ... insisting against the good nature of John Holland, will you? Thanks. No hard feelings.

 

Michael 'old friend' ;)

 

I hadn't followed the other thread but I will respond to it there, because again there as well here you seemed to have missed the point.

 

I've read Wilde, seen theatre, TV, it doesn't impress and I saw no need to present a full dissertation of why Oscar Wilde to me has no depth, like his life, they are very superficial, once you get past the outer facade, there is nothing of substance, it is shallow and conceited. The "Bill", aka Shakespeare, Sartre, now we're talking.

 

People who blithely quote exerpts from Oscar Wilde just because it suits the need of their current argument, lamentation, dissertation, rant, don't do their research. You can find just as many quotes from as many different sources to dispute and absolutely crush any statement by Oscar Wilde or insert name here.

 

So to say Oscar Wilde, ".. blah blah blah..." is ridiculous to support a statement, like it lends some weight to a statement. It doesn't.

 

That is like actors who get on TV, repeat things they read in the newspaper and present it as their own ideas, it's fake, false, and tries to lend credibility to an argument.

 

So the main point is, if you have a good solid statement, rant, etc., rave on but don't rely on quotes from someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...