Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted July 19, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted July 19, 2016 Maybe it is just the people I know who are fans of GoT but they act more like people watching a UFC event than watching a play from antiquity. Pretty sure audiences watched plays in both Shakespeare's time and in Aristotle's time just like people watch 'Game of Thrones' now. The medium was the television of its time... Maybe you should try reading the books instead? It is quite a different experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John E Clark Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) Pretty sure audiences watched plays in both Shakespeare's time and in Aristotle's time just like people watch 'Game of Thrones' now. The medium was the television of its time... Maybe you should try reading the books instead? It is quite a different experience. While in Shake-a-stick's time audiences were mixed, that is men and women in the same room, with no separate area for women... in most roman games, the women were either excluded or limited to a certain section of the coliseum. In Greek times, women were mostly excluded from the theater, with only perhaps limited attendance for 'tragedies'. Roles were played by men, whether a female or male character. Roman theater did have some occasions where a woman played a female role, but that was not typical. There were of course 'street' theater, which women and men, and lots of sex played a role... One of the reasons given for why women were in general excluded in the Greek Theater, was because of the subject matter of 2 of the 3 play forms. In the case of Tragedy, there was at least a moral precept to learn. In the case of Comedy, the bawdiness and sexual explicit or implicit references and acts, were many, as in Aristophanes and women(that is male actors...) wearing dildos, parading through the theater... The 3rd form, the Satyr Play, has limited attestation, that is one complete satyr play from Europides. There are references to other Satyr plays written by playwrights whose Tragedies have survived in their entirety, or mostly entirety, such as Aeschylus. The Satyr Play took even more liberties with bawdy parody of 'high drama'. So, some 2/3 of the Greek Drama has been mostly lost, with 1/3 completely lost, and both categories were mostly dedicated to Drugs (lots of wine...), Sex, and Rock-n-roll. Where as the 1/3 that has been far better preserved has been for 'sober contemplation of the human condition, with all due regard for propriety'... Roman comedies often centered on some sort of sexual scandal with various tropes being used, which are still in use to day... Plautus being one example who has been preserved from ancient times. Oddly, his plays were 'preserved' but the reuse of a manuscript which his plays were written on. Writing materials were expensive, and in many cases the parchment was 'scrubbed' then rewritten. In the case of Plautus... it was a commentary by Augustine on the Psalms.... Edited July 19, 2016 by John E Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted July 20, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted July 20, 2016 So sex sells, but absence of sex sells even better. If the project is good enough. That's was kind of the thrust of my whole Japanese-samurai post on this thread. If your film enriches your cultures history, has a good story to tell, then you don't need sex scenes or massive SFX sequences for a blockbuster / tentpole film. Your film will sell itself. But, how do you quantify skill and good film making as a number in some market formula? I don't think you can. All the features I worked in many years past, save for two, were solid pictures, but weren't picked up for whatever reason. If those directors had injected sex scenes, then maybe there was an outside chance they would sell, or at least get purchased for foreign or direct to video distribution, but they wouldn't be the good films that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) I'm not sure why any historical period would be a "turn off" compared to any other... I personally get disinterested with (not dislike) just about every film that isn't dealing with contemporary humanity on earth in some way. In the last 5 years I've been avoiding Star Wars/LotR type things. Edited July 20, 2016 by Macks Fiiod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 There's nothing new about contemporary humanity, history or science fiction is extremely good at reflecting it in many ways and humanity keeps on repeating its past. LoR comes out of experiences in WW1 after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Yeah but stuff like elves and dragons have the power to silly up a situation. Don't mind fantasy elements, but I can't see a point in high fantasy aside from escapism or world building (neither of which I'm into). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted July 20, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted July 20, 2016 Yeah but stuff like elves and dragons have the power to silly up a situation. Don't mind fantasy elements, but I can't see a point in high fantasy aside from escapism or world building (neither of which I'm into). They're fairy tales, and people like a good fairy tale. Typically Hollywood makes films that allow social release, and that's what the big tent-poles are for. It's why we got a LOTR and Hobbit films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now