Reel Wisdom: Lessons from 40 Films in 7 Minutes

[Immortal4life]

In one of Non's threads someone posted a video of Yoda, literally to give him advice. It was funny, but it was so true. It made me think of this great video I had watched recently.

 

Reel Wisdom: Lessons from 40 Films in 7 Minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8CaC4RMwsM

[manitou]

Very nice, Immortal.

 

I especially liked 'Begin each day as though it had purpose'.

 

Thanks!

[Immortal4life]

Glad you liked it, it's a pretty profound video

[Immortal4life]

Yoda

[Sloppy Zhang]

Haha, half that was from "The Matrix" and "Star Wars", easy picks, huh? Almost too easy to find applicable clips.

 

Still, some good stuff.

[Immortal4life]

Man I tell you, George Lucas knew a lot of shit about....stuff.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Immortal4life

[zerostao]

i love it when a single entry from toaist tv(found in the basement) gets its own thread.

[mewtwo]

loved it. especialy the part with the lion king in it.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Man I tell you, George Lucas knew a lot of shit about....stuff.

 

I find it far more likely that instead he just pulled trite aphorisms and fortune cookie wisdom from a surface level, only-know-the-buzzwords understanding of various eastern religions and philosophies, and it all only seemed new and exciting because it hadn't been heard much before in the west through such wide means as cinema.

 

But I could be wrong and he could be a real master, in which case I'm really missing out. I mean, it's not like I'm saying there's not good stuff in there, because there is... it's just that there's nothing in there which makes me think he knows a lot about anything other than making popular movies.

 

But again... could be wrong.

[Nanashi]

But again... could be wrong.

 

No, you are right-- Lucas lifted his characters and scenes from Kurosawa's early works; his story and plot are spoon-fed lectures from Joseph Campbell.

 

Not to say the video isn't bad, but those are easy clips for a "spiritual" montage. Only one scene from Kung Fu Panda? I may have cried with the turtle master died.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I wish Blasto were with us to comment...*sniff*...Film Master that he is...

[Immortal4life]

lectures from Joseph Campbell.

 

Some have called George Lucas Joseph Cambell's greatest student.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

The Zhang. It is too sloppy, no?

[Immortal4life]

People can have all the personal opinions they want, but George Lucas' success tells you the real story.

[Sloppy Zhang]

People can have all the personal opinions they want, but George Lucas' success tells you the real story.

 

You know who else is successful? Paris Hilton.

 

Ever heard of argumentum ad populum?

 

It's a logical fallacy.

 

Just because a bunch of people agree doesn't mean something is necessarily right.

 

And just because someone has had some measure of success (in fields such as cinema) doesn't mean he or she is particularly amazing, skillful, or inherently better than someone else. It just means that, for whatever reason, they had popular appeal at the time.

 

Plenty of artists died poor, only to be heralded as geniuses in subsequent generations!

 

If the first Star Wars flopped (it didn't get bought by any major companies, because they all thought it would flop, which is why George Lucas still has the rights, and all the money) would people still Lucas was onto something?

 

I dunno, but as you said, it's an opinion thing anyway.

[Immortal4life]

It's not an argument ad populum.

 

It's not about what people's opinions are. Often times people can't objectively explain to you why they like something. What is it that makes one painting sell, and another not sell? What makes you like one musician and not another?

 

How often have you heard a girl say, "I hate what these rappers are saying, but it's such a catchy song I can't stop listening to it, and can't talk bad about it."

 

You can have 2 paintings of equal skill level, and yet one attracts people and the other can't draw flies to horse manure. You can have a movie that has tons of intellectual content, well developed stories and characters, that should be a good movie on paper, and yet people still aren't drawn to it. People can't explain why this happens.

 

Whatever you do, whether you are an artist, musician, filmaker, athlete...there's more to it than just the art. In anything you do, you have to give it life, you have to give it energy.

 

One of the ultimate tests is whether you can draw. How much attractive power what you put out has. There is an x factor that most people can't identify, so they think it's all about skill, but it's not. It's about whether you put energy into it, the energy to attract other people. How much attractive power you personally have, will be reflected in the product that you create.

 

So again, numbers don't lie. It doesn't matter what you do, it's worthless unless it can attract and draw. Anything you do is worthless if you can't put energy and attractive power into it.

 

Nothing has value on it's own, it only has value for the results it gets. The ultimate criteria for the quality of anything is how much energy is implanted into it, and how much attractive power it has.

 

Attraction and Energy, that is the only objective inherent value something can have. Star Wars, certainly has this. More so than other movies that should be "better" movies on paper, but don't cut it in reality.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Sloppy Zhang]

It's not an argument ad populum.

 

It's not about what people's opinions are. Often times people can't objectively explain to you why they like something. What is it that makes one painting sell, and another not sell? What makes you like one musician and not another?

 

How often have you heard a girl say, "I hate what these rappers are saying, but it's such a catchy song I can't stop listening to it, and can't talk bad about it."

 

You can have 2 paintings of equal skill level, and yet one attracts people and the other can't draw flies to horse manure. You can have a movie that has tons of intellectual content, well developed stories and characters, that should be a good movie on paper, and yet people still aren't drawn to it. People can't explain why this happens.

 

Whatever you do, whether you are an artist, musician, filmaker, athlete...there's more to it than just the art. In anything you do, you have to give it life, you have to give it energy.

 

One of the ultimate tests is whether you can draw. How much attractive power what you put out has. There is an x factor that most people can't identify, so they think it's all about skill, but it's not. It's about whether you put energy into it, the energy to attract other people. How much attractive power you personally have, will be reflected in the product that you create.

 

So again, numbers don't lie. It doesn't matter what you do, it's worthless unless it can attract and draw. Anything you do is worthless if you can't put energy and attractive power into it.

 

Nothing has value on it's own, it only has value for the results it gets. The ultimate criteria for the quality of anything is how much energy is implanted into it, and how much attractive power it has.

 

Attraction and Energy, that is the only objective inherent value something can have. Star Wars, certainly has this. More so than other movies that should be "better" movies on paper, but don't cut it in reality.

 

Well that's all well and good assuming you want to get all mystical.

 

But all it means, if someone is popular, is that they have public support (for however long amount of time).

 

And again, that doesn't say ANYTHING about the person the people support. They could be brilliant or stupid. Sinner or saint.

 

And it changes. There was a sentiment put forward in the film Gladiator, where a character says, "remember, the mob is fickle". There's no telling why someone one day is a nobody, then the next is at the height of popularity, but then gets cast down to being a nobody (think William Hung).

 

Then you've got people who, thanks to the backing of large media corporations, have their products inundate the market, and are "popular" by default.

 

And your unnameable "x factor" sounds great, until you look at people who have no talent, and don't actually do ANYTHING, like Paris Hilton, who is just "there", meanwhile you've got artists who starved to death in life, but we think of them today as great. If their work had so much attraction, had so much attractive power, then why didn't it get them any fame and success when they were alive???

 

Because the mob is fickle. Because there is no telling when and why people will find something cool. Which is why business spend tons of money each year trying to predict the next big trends, and catch it before it happens, and why businesses lose tons of money each year because their bets failed. But they keep trying because when it works, it pays off BIG.

 

The thing is, you see the successes, but don't see the failures. So it APPEARS that some "x factor" is drawing people in, when really, you have no way of knowing what vicissitudes of fate pushed something onto the stage, or shoved it off.

[Immortal4life]

Well that's all well and good assuming you want to get all mystical.

 

But all it means, if someone is popular, is that they have public support (for however long amount of time).

 

This brings up another important issue. You see, some things indeed will have so called public support for longer periods of time than others.

 

The Star Wars Franchise has been going strong for a very long time.

 

And again, that doesn't say ANYTHING about the person the people support. They could be brilliant or stupid. Sinner or saint.

 

Exactly, you are catching on. In the process of creating, while intelligence and spiritual/moral characteristics are 2 very important factors, both those things in and of themselves are not complete. You must also number 1, be accurate, precise, and consistent. And number 2, have enthusiasm, vibrancy, energy, and magnetism.

 

In any creation you need to use those 4 things, energy, intelligence, accuracy, and spirituality/love.

 

These are the 4 measures of any creation or creative force.

 

And it changes. There was a sentiment put forward in the film Gladiator, where a character says, "remember, the mob is fickle". There's no telling why someone one day is a nobody, then the next is at the height of popularity, but then gets cast down to being a nobody (think William Hung).

 

There is a reason. Things always sway back and forth, between 2 extreme polarities.

 

Everyone in this life, will have times where cirumstances and events will relatively be in their favour, times when chance seems to conspire against them, and times in between.

 

Those who can stand the test of time, and best weather these storms, ups and downs in life, are those with the most energy, vibrancy, and magnetism. Those with the most intelligence, discrimination, and reason. Those with the most accuracy, consistency, and perfection.....and those with the most spirituality, love, trust, and tolerance.

 

A good example is Jesus, he had those 4 key areas developed completely. For this reason most men today stand in awe of his achievements, and his words are worshipped by billions today. Yet Jesus was loved one day, then hated and crucified the next.

 

Then you've got people who, thanks to the backing of large media corporations, have their products inundate the market, and are "popular" by default.

 

That's true, but those corporate powers, are indeed powers in and of themselves. Their greatest power is the power and energy of wealth. "Green energy", you can call it.

 

And your unnameable "x factor" sounds great, until you look at people who have no talent, and don't actually do ANYTHING, like Paris Hilton, who is just "there",

 

There are reasons people are attracted to Paris Hilton. She may or may not be lacking in some areas of life or character in some people's views, but in many aspects she is extremely powerful and attractive. Obviously. She is certainly pleasing to the eye, and has a certain charisma.

 

meanwhile you've got artists who starved to death in life, but we think of them today as great. If their work had so much attraction, had so much attractive power, then why didn't it get them any fame and success when they were alive???

 

There could be many possible reasons. It could have been ahead of it's time and most people didn't have refined enough tastes to appreciate it. Societies change and people's thinking changes with it.

 

It could have been that it was strong in some aspects, but lacking in other aspects, so developing a taste for it came on slowly.

 

Because the mob is fickle.

 

I agree that, for various reasons, that statement is and can be very true.

 

Because there is no telling when and why people will find something cool. Which is why business spend tons of money each year trying to predict the next big trends, and catch it before it happens, and why businesses lose tons of money each year because their bets failed. But they keep trying because when it works, it pays off BIG.

 

Like you say, they have enough wealth channeled, that they can lose some of it and the payoffs still eventually make it worthwhile in the end. Research and studies can be valuable, but they aren't everything.

 

The thing is, you see the successes, but don't see the failures. So it APPEARS that some "x factor" is drawing people in, when really, you have no way of knowing what vicissitudes of fate pushed something onto the stage, or shoved it off.

 

It's not really hard to see that wealth channeled in certain directions, money, and resources can add to and guide creations to make them very appealing and attractive.

 

This is also only one method of creating, there are other ways. Not everything that is popular or successful is created by big companies either.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Immortal4life