...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

[stingg]

*blinks*

[Jonnymedic]

Gurnax and Pompej should write a book together

[Gurnax]

Gurnax and Pompej should write a book together

First, i would like to exlude Masonic conspiracy, secret governmental organizations in league with extraterrestrials from F.Nietzsche cuz its distastefull

It's not distasteful, it's Nietzschean, so I thought you are going to appreciate it. Nietzsche is the only classical philosopher known for saying things such as: 'George Sand is a milch cow with fine style' or that 'Kant is a typical idiot'. To claim it is distasteful is to fall on a rather pre-Nietzschean, anti-Nietzschean, and in generally pre-modern conservative level.

The thing is where we part ways is pretty simple : motion picture. I agree with what you said if i would think like you,there is no doubt about it.Your explanation as how you see cinema are very astute and valid. But lets think like me for a moment : i gave you lot of arguments why this movie would have a Nietzsche premise (if you dont like the sound of it, we can say this conan movie has similar ideas to one german philosopher) and i see all of them well thinked and argumented (to a point when nietzsches books were read ofc). Cuz let say this : for me motion picture is subjective experience.And even if it wasnt i still wouldnt care cuz you make you own rules,you have no choice. You will take other ideas or say " i want this,this is my ruling word".Im not interested in the absolute meaning of motion picture cuz i dont see it like you do.But im far from " all have a right to think what we want,all is true(or nothing is true)". Thats why we have dialetic ,the ultimate defense weapon to be right even if we arnt.

You are here confusing dialectics with sophism big time. Dialectics proper resolve thesis-antithesis dynamics in synthesis, while sophism is that which is 'defense weapon of those who are not right'.

Then, you are saying you have a 'different view' and are asking me to consider 'your point of view' - and yet you claim you are 'far from claiming all is true, all have right to think their own way' etc. These two do look mutually exclusive, you must admit.

Although the apparent contradiction can be resolved as followed: if we say that since 1.) you don't admit everyone's right to have equally valid opinions and 2.) you are asking your opinion to be taken into special consideration, then it has to be that 3.) what you are truly asking is to be treated as extraordinary, in opposition to everyone else whose opinion you'd like to be of less value then yours. But it's a wrong thing to ask for when having conversation about movies.

[Pompej]

Gurnax and Pompej should write a book together

First, i would like to exlude Masonic conspiracy, secret governmental organizations in league with extraterrestrials from F.Nietzsche cuz its distastefull

It's not distasteful, it's Nietzschean, so I thought you are going to appreciate it. Nietzsche is the only classical philosopher known for saying things such as: 'George Sand is a milch cow with fine style' or that 'Kant is a typical idiot'. To claim it is distasteful is to fall on a rather pre-Nietzschean, anti-Nietzschean, and in generally pre-modern conservative level.

The thing is where we part ways is pretty simple : motion picture. I agree with what you said if i would think like you,there is no doubt about it.Your explanation as how you see cinema are very astute and valid. But lets think like me for a moment : i gave you lot of arguments why this movie would have a Nietzsche premise (if you dont like the sound of it, we can say this conan movie has similar ideas to one german philosopher) and i see all of them well thinked and argumented (to a point when nietzsches books were read ofc). Cuz let say this : for me motion picture is subjective experience.And even if it wasnt i still wouldnt care cuz you make you own rules,you have no choice. You will take other ideas or say " i want this,this is my ruling word".Im not interested in the absolute meaning of motion picture cuz i dont see it like you do.But im far from " all have a right to think what we want,all is true(or nothing is true)". Thats why we have dialetic ,the ultimate defense weapon to be right even if we arnt.

You are here confusing dialectics with sophism big time. Dialectics proper resolve thesis-antithesis dynamics in synthesis, while sophism is that which is 'defense weapon of those who are not right'.

Then, you are saying you have a 'different view' and are asking me to consider 'your point of view' - and yet you claim you are 'far from claiming all is true, all have right to think their own way' etc. These two do look mutually exclusive, you must admit.

Although the apparent contradiction can be resolved as followed: if we say that since 1.) you don't admit everyone's right to have equally valid opinions and 2.) you are asking your opinion to be taken into special consideration, then it has to be that 3.) what you are truly asking is to be treated as extraordinary, in opposition to everyone else whose opinion you'd like to be of less value then yours. But it's a wrong thing to ask for when having conversation about movies.

"It's not distasteful, it's Nietzschean, so I thought you are going to appreciate it". Im not Nietzschean nore Kants nore Marxs nore Hegels. Like this movie that is not Nietzschen, in some places conans movie sphere and nietzsche (or somehwere heraklits) philosophy sphere mingle together.

"Then, you are saying you have a 'different view' and are asking me to consider 'your point of view' - and yet you claim you are 'far from claiming all is true," . First ill starting saying yes to this. Lets call your motion picure axiom a large sytem of thoughts apon which you have your stand whilst i have the same on my side. Attacking the large system seems futile cuz in there are to many thoughts and "certaintys" that could be converted at once. Here i can draw a nice paralele with christianity and roman imperum : what brought imprum down wasnt the radical and direct christian retoric yet small attacts in romans "own field". In my modesnt opinion, christians broke roman values with small undirect blows slowly. They inverted the value system and started nibbling romans in their own field till they were subdued by chistian venom. Sorry if i went to far . I wanted to explain how i think "someone have a right to BE right". Entering in the advesery field and staring nibbling and their value and truth(s).

"Although the apparent contradiction can be resolved as followed: if we say that since 1.) you don't admit everyone's right to have equally valid opinions and 2.) you are asking your opinion to be taken into special consideration, then it has to be that". 1 . i dont . 2. yes ,i do . but im ready to be "reasoned with" anytime. What gives other people pleasure to see a man fail or be wrong at their eyes. But what gives them power looking at that is if you look embarrassed or weak cuz you failed. Im not vain enough to hold on lies just to have the smirk on my face saying : i have the truth.Why i can do that ? cuz i dont value truth over a lie (everdough lying is a drag) or lie over truth.

Finally ,i misunderstand sophism and dialetics as the same intentionally. Knowing power of dialetics over a man who does not know them makes dialetics a weapon which can be used to be right even if a man isnt.Eristic dialetic(A.Shopenhauer, my forum picture) is that (maybe i should state that at start ).

If i forgot to anwser to anything else i would be glad to do so later in the day.

[Gurnax]

Finally ,i misunderstand sophism and dialetics as the same intentionally. Knowing power of dialetics over a man who does not know them makes dialetics a weapon which can be used to be right even if a man isnt.Eristic dialetic(A.Shopenhauer, my forum picture) is that (maybe i should state that at start ).

You cannot call elephant a chair just cause you feel like it. Those are two opposed concepts, and dialectics has a fixed meaning referring to a certain concept dating all the way from Plato till this day. In order to draw clear lines of demarcation Plato wrote his dialogue 'Sophists', and today we have clear two fronts in philosophy made by postmodern relativistic approach that inherits sophistry on one side, while having dialectics proper on the opposite side.

You produce statements with little to support them. You started this correspondence by saying something like (and now I parody) 'Oh, finally, some educated soul elevated enough to understand the high mysteries of Conan movie's connection to Nietzsche!' which I find very objectionable to say the least. Or you can, but only if you are just joking. From Chaplin to this day film has been and still is something that defies such classification and such utterly unnecessary mystification.

[Pompej]

You cannot call elephant a chair just cause you feel like it. Those are two opposed concepts, and dialectics has a fixed meaning referring to a certain concept dating all the way from Plato till this day." That is true but when i first said the word " dialetics" it was in a shopenhauer sense and to be understood like that since sophism and dialetics have some things in common.Thats the only way how sophism and dialetics can be intengeled.How plato saw dialetics is a know fact but i didint put the word dialetics in that sence . When i said : "dialetic ,the defense weapon to be right even when you are not" its pretty obvious im not aiming at Plato. So the question is : do sophism and dialetics (sopenhauer) have a common ground or not.


You produce statements with little to support them" . Where ? If i say conan 1982 is a f.niezsche philo.premise (given you examples),im not saying the movie is wrtien to be one,or maybe it was,we never know. But what we can know is in Conan barbarian 1982 you would say there are paths that refer to nietzsche(lets forget bout the starting movie quote).Just that.If someone saw that film as a brutal cheap action,im sure it is. But i didnt and i wasnt serching for philosophical premise ,it found me when watching.

"Oh, finally, some educated soul elevated enough to understand the high mysteries of Conan movie's connection to Nietzsche". I dont know if he is educated or soul elevated,that doesnt mather for what he said. What i suspect what he found something in conan 1982 to my liking the the movie Conan 1982. No,i dont think im smart or unique snowflake cuz i see philosophical backround in a movie. Thinking what other people did doesnt clasify me a smart,just a guy with a good memory.

[Seraphita]

@Pompej,

What bothers me with this approach, when stitching some philosopher or even some other work of art to a certain piece of cinema, is precisely the 'un-filmical' character of such an act (as in 'not-right-for-that-concrete-medium').

What I mean is, cinema is by definition collective (experience), it is inclusive and therefore it does not suffer exclusivity. Even if you watch a film at home, still it is intended for the masses. It is an industry, a mass medium, and by definition it treats everyone the same/as if everyone is same. And when someone says, like you did here 'Oh, it's actually Nietzsche!' you are trying to somehow bypass this particular cinema's dimension, it's essential characteristic, because you are trying to rise above others in a context that does not allow that kind of exclusion. And in that attempt, I would argue, you only manage to bypass the whole work of cinema and nothing else. And the only thing you gain is something akin to paranoid delusions, where you see 'hidden truths' and 'hidden masters' - whether they are F. Nietzsche, Masonic conspiracy, secret governmental organizations in league with extraterrestrials, it amounts to same thing: you miss the film because you look at something else which even might not be there.

I think the first step in approaching film should be to see how it relates to masses, and then count that in as certain film's major achievement. So, if you, like you said, think Milius' Conan movie doesn't really emphasize Nietzsche enough, so that many people believe this quote is there almost by mistake, then that's it: it's not a Nietzschean film and it only flirts with Nietzsche! And, in truth, it might be doing that because it doesn't really need Nietzsche's words - it has it's own language and its own ways of achieving effects of meaning.

We are in the 21st century where movies are made to cash in the cinemas as much as possible, this means making it as simple and visually impressive as possible. The references to other cultures or books must be made explicit as clearly as possible so people can get stunned by believing they actually view a high quality movie with "loads of stuff" in it. Last Conan movie must have felt so blunt that some corpses revolved in anger on their tombs.

[Gurnax]

But i didnt and i wasnt serching for philosophical premise ,it found me when watching.

I rather like this part and if I didn't know you better I might even believe you. Reason that I don't is your initial all-too-fast readiness to simply discard the second Conan as well as the Momoa one and to classify them as 'cheep'. That's my main point here: opposition 'cheep-high culture' just isn't applicable here - neither to movies nor to video games for that matter.

Here's a rather cool beginning of Roger Ebert's 1982 Conan flick review:

"Not since Bambi's mother was killed has there been a cannier movie for kids than 'Conan the Barbarian.' (...) But 'Conan' is a perfect fantasy for the alienated preadolescent. Consider: Conan's parents are brutally murdered by the evil Thulsa Doom, which gets them neatly out of the way. The child is chained to the Wheel of Pain, where he goes around in circles for years, a metaphor for grade school. The kid builds muscles so terrific he could be a pro football player." (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /201010313)

If they indeed do make this new film some kind of Conan the barbarian version of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven where we have old Wild West gunmen dealing with old age ("We think this is a worthy successor to the original film. Think of this as Conan’s Unforgiven." says Chris Morgan, http://www.deadline.com/2012/10/arnold- ... rzenegger/) it will be a rather cool thing to see the character we knew as he was growing up to now see how he is getting old.

There are just too many young people in today's per-dominant culture, everything is so unbearably young people orientated; Twilight saga and all that crap... So am really looking forward to finally see some old guy as the main character!

[Junoa]

old guys are doing fine, just look at recent movies, from R.e.d to the expandebles, is working fine, if young ppl dont like it, meh I dont care we were young once amd didnt like what our parents were having as cool in their days

[Pompej]

"I rather like this part and if I didn't know you better I might even believe you. Reason that I don't is your initial all-too-fast readiness to simply discard the second Conan as well as the Momoa one and to classify them as 'cheep' ".
I gave my thoughts on that notion above : in few words,i dont see a philosopical premise underlining those movies. I saw just examples like you stated with no string that is layed from the beegining trought end of those two movies.I didnt go in deital with conan barbarian 1982 premise(but i gave you examples) since i suspect you know that movie all to good . i can show you a deitaled string if needed but i know you also see the silimarities to F.N in most of them. It would be interesting to hear what string you can pull from new conan and destroyer as a whole. Its not imposibile it escaped me.

That's my main point here: opposition 'cheep-high culture' just isn't applicable here - neither to movies nor to video games for that matter".

I dont have a problem with that as far as movies go.Why you (still) think i have a problem with it ? Saying conan barbarian is deep is my statement.I do not represent any "masses" when saying that.I represed me and what i said and i stand by that ,still (after these talks).If you want to deminish my point then just say conan 1982 and f,nietzsche dont have anything to do with each other and voila,im defeated.

As far as video games go ,aoc in particual ,i see high culture as skilled players and moderate ones like non-high culture evendough all of this dont realy mather in real life .Also its no high culture to see philosophy in movies as its no high culture to read books and say what others said.But you still have lots and lots of people think thats high culture.Im not one of those.Btw what is high culture ?.That acually reminded me of semi qoute : "in the future, flocks and flocks of people will even think that "smart" is a important existencional condition par excellence, while in aristocratic(i left this word as a mine,watch out ) terms it has a taste of refined luxury". So gently saying im bosting my own ego(im to emberesed to boost it on movie talk) when saying conan 1982 is a great movie(then pompej must be a great man to see it as a great movie) compared to destroyer nad mamoa guy is unvalid.If we look at it that way, you might aswell boost yours when saying : those conan 1982 fanboys think its deep when i say it isnt

But yes ,i see Conan 1982 world as fair as it gets.You can call me young and i can call you old