Mike:
> what is woody allen but fluff in tweed? star trek, the real one, not
> those idiotic spinoffs, occasionally dealt with the same issues the greeks
> and writers like thomas mann dealt with in the guise of a cheeseball sci-fi.
And what is Romeo and Juliet but a love story, like Titanic ( the "go on and on
and on and on" blockbuster )? Is that what you mean?! Don't you think the Greeks
would have, let's say, a "different perspective" on existential issues from that
of Star Trek? Don't you see a difference between Italian designing furniture and
those campy chairs on Enterprise? hehe
> and buffy is the only show i can think of that has portrayed a lesbian
> relationship in such a positive light.
Yeah... kind of... Tara could be less retarded and Willow "La Femme Nikita", but
I agree with you.
> and that is similar to the cosby
> show portraying black family as an upper middle class, successful family.
> both these shows, in those instances, are valuable in improving the social
> conscious which, places their importance above that of other fiction. of
> what social value is woody allen?
Don't tell Sociology is your ruler to the arts! Do you mean a Brazilian Indian
tent is as/more valuable as/than Gaudi's church, in Barcelona?
> the discovery channel deals with reality. we deal with reality (well,
> at least, some of us do). if we can learn better ways to handle our reality
> from the discovery channel, that makes it actually valuable and not just
> valuable because we like it. that is not to say that things we like are
> without value. without quality ( subjective judgement ) in our lives, of
> what value is our lives to us?
Discovery Channel was only an example I found to contrast with "Days of our
lives", but I have to admit I compared an apple to a train. But why do you
happen to have "skipped" this part: "and I'm here wondering if that wouldn't
apply to the Backstreet Boys ( and all the boys bands, which the Beatles were
the beta-version for ), Madonna, Michael Jackson, Eminem, Celine Dion, etc"?So
tell me: besides their "sociological importance", what good qualities do you see
in the Beatles that makes them deserve being listened to by people who despise
those artists I mentioned above? I've been asking Beatlemaniacs that question
for years but I've never gotten a rational answer.
If you answer what I suppose you will,like people have on and off Vocalist,
that the very fact that so many people love them shows that they touch people in
a way that other artists don't, then it's a demonstration that Star Trek could
never get any close to the Greeks: that's "circular thinking" ( is that the term
in English? ), something Aristotles decodified thousands of years ago and Mr.
Spock should be aware of, even if he never heard of that guy ( he's a Volcano,
after all! ).
I'm trying to understand why people overreact to someone who doesn't like the
Beatles while they wouldn't react the same way if I said I dislike the Bee Gees
or Whitney Houston. I've talked to many musicians about that ( btw, I've found
many more musicians who don't like the Beatles than in the average population )
and most of them can't understand that either. They say the Beatles are
musically irrelevant ( or a step back, actually ), but they're THE BEATLES,
they're a myth and I've got to live with that! hehe I could understand if people
said: "What, you don't like Mozart???!!", but "What, you don't like the
Beatles??!!" is as senseless to me as "What, you don't like Mariah Carey??!!" or
"What, you don't like Deep Purple??!!", etc. It's just a matter of preference,
not value.
What have I ( and, I proved, another person! hehe ) missed??
Thanks,
Caio Rossi
|
