BobDylan

"The first part is in my 'native language,' and then the second part provides a translation, or at least an explanation. This is not a look-at-the-autie gawking freakshow as much as it is a statement about what gets considered thought, intelligence, personhood, language, and communication, and what does not." What do you guys make of this?

QUOTE(Cali @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 10:27 PM) A pretty great folk album from the lead singer of Thrice, so, so good. Especially the title track, and "Blanket of Ghosts" Highly reccomended... Folk rock, not folk. I gave him a listen on MySpace. Decent stuff, but I'll stick with my other folk loves.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 08:26 PM) Bob, setting this particular movie aside. Is there a point when the limit can't be tested anymore? Is there a point when people say, we are not going that far? And who is to decide? The lowest common denominator? Off the top of my head, the limit is when people get hurt. Sure you might say, "THIS MOVIE HURTS THE KIDS WHO SEE IT!" Sure, but then again, kids aren't supposed to see R rated movies, and it's the parents job to set them straight after they see it. And if it's an adult that is offended, as an artist, here's my response: "Sorry, pal. Don't check out my next exibit (or film, or album, or painting, or book or whatever) then. I'm sorry you were offended by it, but that's not my problem. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of my work." So I say the limit is when people are phsyically hurt. And the people who decide the limits are the public. That's pretty well understood among artists. We create work so we can get criticized and praised alike.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 06:54 PM) The point I was poorly making is if one buys into the breaking down barriers argument, there is some goal, something that the artist or audience is heading to. So what is the goal in this? What couldn't be shown in 1990 that is being shown here? And, more importantly, what will be shown in 2020 because of this? I understand the testing of limits, but only if there actually are limits and when they are reached, they are kept. I really don't know any other way to explain it to you. Limits need to be broken so artists can use their "skills" to create and further messages. If you want to know what message being shown here is, SEE THE MOVIE. Don't judge it beforehand. We've all heard the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover." Idea's like this have probably been presented all over the time periods. It's not just the artist taking a risk, it's the company that buys the film too. They've got just as much on the line. They're the people like you wondering, "What good will this do anyone?" Well, the only way to see is to put it out there. To take that risk. And I can't tell you where this will bring us in 2020. You know I can't answer that question. No artist or visionary can. But unless we keep trying to progress, we'll eventually see. Won't we? But MOST OF ALL, give the art a chance before you judge it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 06:15 AM) I can't understand the point of view that these boundaries in how child abuse is depicted in movies should come down. Why anyone would want to see more or that, and in greater detail, sickens me. I understand pushing some limits, but not in child abuse. Someone tell me just how much violence and abuse against children they want to see in movies? Is there really that great of a demand to see young children abused? Isn't it possible we have reached a limit? Maybe Taxi Driver was the edge? Tex, you have to take art in context. The movie is more than just the rape. It's a story. The rape is only a part of it. The characters will develop, grow and learn in some way from it. It'll also propose more questions once you actually see the story instead of judging it before hand. For instance, in Taxi Driver, DeNiro's character had to kill people to get the 14 year old prostitute back home. Is that heroic? Is it not? And so on. The boundry isn't just depicting rape...it's putting it out there so other artists can use it in different ways so they can put some other amount of awareness out there. So they can pose more questions for the general public about the atrocity in child rape. This is why breaking boundries in art is important.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 06:01 PM) jodie foster as a 14 year old prostitute Good one. It should also be mentioned that Taxi Driver is considered one of the greatest movies of all time.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 03:20 PM) Test the limits? OK I totally agree with that. But too many people, and it seems you are in that camp, are not ok with testing the limits. By agreeing to test the limits, one has to agree there are limits. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case. Some are accepting that the simulation of raping a child is within the limits. Some are not. Where in "testing the limits" is the understanding that the limit has been reached and needs to be reeled back in? You make a valid point, however, most artists are aware of what the limits are. Actually and physically raping Dakata is beyond the limit. That's wrong, that's not in the name of art. But this is a fictionalization. It's a depiction. In fact, Dakota isn't even truly acting the rape out. Film is just a sequence of pictures. They filmed this scene by shooting several reaction shots. None of them are in real time, none of them are even shot sequentially. She was never really put in a position where she had to feel like she was being raped. These types of depictions haven't only happened in film, either. They've happened in books -- which, if you ask me, has much more potential to bring form and power to it -- but nobody ever throws a fit about that. Why not? Why does it take a film to make the difference? And to answer your question, to know the limits, things like this have to happen. Somebody has to have the hair to see if they've crossed the line.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 07:11 AM) When something of this nature becomes "entertainment" we start to accept it. To say it's ok because it's "art" or because someone is making money off it, is wrong. Some will try and justify anything in the name of "art". We can go all the way back and discuss feeding people to lions as "art". It is bad when we become more and more desensitized to something as perverse as the exploitation of children. Tex, if I recall correctly, we've had arguments about art before. You've said you don't understand the arts. So how can you possibly justify "to say it's art is wrong"? I agree that if the only interest is money, it's wrong. But with a lot of art, you have to test the limits. You have to go out on a limb and you have to accept people's reactions. Art is a debate, it's a grey area. It's not mathematics where there are proven answers. This subject may be "new" to art, but it's certainly not the only time somebody has pushed the limitations further than people were ready for. The Graduate showed nipples. Truman Capote back stabbed a murderer in the name of his book In Cold Blood. Hell, there's even a movie out at the same Sundance Festival called Zoo about beastiality. Art is about taking risks. It's not about making sure nobody is offended in the process or with the final project. If there were no risks involved, it'd never progress.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 10:18 PM) Not all movies are art, nor was this something trying for a deeper meaning. At some of these indie film festivals they pass off penetration based porn with a plot as an indie movie. I think the depiction of a rape of a child is not something we need to have in society. The only thing that the creator of the film wanted to bring attention to, is to their own interests and to create a buzz to see their crappy film. Oh look its so forbidden, its so risky, its so shocking. No its f***ing sick and shouldn't be shown. Dakota and the filmakers didnt do this movie for some sort of special tribute or awareness to sex crimes against children. They did it for awards and a paycheck. There is a reason that the original funding from this movie was pulled, yet as always there is someone sick enough to run up and fund anything. I wonder when Nambla and the rest of the freaks are going to buy their tickets. The catholic church can make an outcry to this just as Tex said, however need to also have an outcry at their own moronic goons who have molested kids. There are good priests out there, and it is sad that a few morons have ruined the image of what should be something that should be the image of mans relationship with god. The bar is always getting set higher and higher in art. Ground is always breaking. Look at 1960's art and then look at today. "Taboo" is a lot different. Rape is not a new thing in film. Child molestation isn't either. If people don't want to see a movie with this sort of depiction, don't go see it. It's as simple as that. The creator may have been looking for attention, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's still art. Art pisses a lot of people off, and most of the time the artists get off on it. Art is not for the weak minded, it's not for the close minded. It doesn't have to have a good message in the view of society. That's just plain bull-s*** and goes against everything art stands for.

Movies are an art. Art is supposed to draw controversy. This movie has done its job already.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 02:36 PM) This publication had Metal Gear as being non-exclusive as It said that its release will be on the PS3 but that they will also release it after on the 360 (although I know this has been something thats been debated on here as it seems like there are varying reports on how true that is). Kojima (MGS creator) on the series moving to other consoles: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/adventure/meta...tml?sid=6127573 Granted, it's an old article, and yes he leaves the door open a slight crack.

QUOTE(shipps @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 12:56 AM) Thanx,I emailed some guy that had some tickets hopefully that will workout,but its discouraging cause mostly everyone is looking for tickets. Keep checking back. When the show nears, people will back out and such and sell tickets. If all else fails, it never hurts to go to the venue and see if people are selling tickets on the street.

Check here: http://chicago.craigslist.org/search/tix?query=shins

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 21, 2007 -> 10:54 PM) Considering there is a lot of talk about Metal Gear being on both systems eventually, and GTA is both systems...I'd say that the main games that Sony used to own that were specific to one system are no longer the case. Throw in HALO 3 and well I'm sold (but I don't play Final Fantasy). And I want to point out that yes, I think if you want a BluRay player than the PS3 is a bargain, but I'd rather wait until the dust has settled and get a quality player. Oh and the PS3, the one where I have to pay extra money to get either component cables or HDMI cable (albeit I give em credit for offering HDMI at its release). I am not talking about release games though, I've looked at the list of games exclusive to both systems (future releases) and vastly prefer those that are on Microsoft's console (thats obviously personal preference though). And I want to point one thing out...you can buy an Xbox 360 platinum for 299 (you just may have to wait a week or two, but Microcenter & Toys R'us have had this deal and I have heard a couple other places did for a while too)...so even if you wanted wireless, thats 399. Thats 200 bucks less than the PS3 with those features. Thats a big difference. And the Microsoft online is superior to that of PS3, imo. Again, statement of opinion and I'm a cheapo so I hate the idea of having to pay 50 a month, but in the end its a bargain if you play games online a lot (or if you get a few buddies over and than all of you play online). Metal Gear coming to all systems is a FALSE rumor. The new PS3 network seems to be holding up well. I'm not certain, but I believe online play is free for good. Microsoft owned online gaming with the last gen, but Sony has made their changes and mimicked what Microsoft has done. Only, it's free. Can you provide a list of games that are Microsoft only releases? I don't know where to check, or I'm just plain blind at the sites I go to. Any matter, we've both said it, it's all a matter of opinion. I had the PS, the PS2 and bought the PS3 because I'm familiar with it all: the games, the controller, the set up, the troubleshooting, etc. That's essentially the main reason I went with Sony over Microsoft. I've seen the Xbox360, even played it a little, and it's a great system. But given that it's a totally new set-up for me, I feel lost with it. Therefore, I don't buy it. But anyway, I'm still interested in arguing games. Sony has always had a wide range of games, and a few that are worth every cent every time they come out. Really, the only game I wish Sony could get is Metroid Prime. But I don't really know what Microsoft has beyond Halo.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 21, 2007 -> 11:57 AM) Lets see, in two months the Xbox will be a full fledged DVR, the thing is amazing as a media extender already (when networked with a media computer). The games on the system are infinitely better (and the exclusive Microsoft games >>>> exclusive PS3 games). And the Xbox online mode is so much better because its subscription (I never thought I'd say that but it is). And I don't need a wireless adapter anymore so I'm not too concerned with that. Oh and the Xbox Platinum can be found for about 299 (depending on when you are buying it) or you can find a way to get Cosco to give it a discount (which is what I did because I love Cosco's warranty). Oh and the PS3 controller is a piece of s*** compared to that of the Xbox. The Xbox one is so much more ergonomic its not even funny. I can't believe Sony scrapped building there new controller because I think the PS3 controller is very flawed. Plus the wireless controller on the Xbox is far better (PS3's has had a lot of problems, I'm sure they'll fix it, but they've had tons of interference issues). Every point you make is flawed. First, compare Xbox 360's launch titles to that of PS3's for a fair comparison. Microsoft didn't have much to offer at their launch either, and if I can remember correctly, they didn't have a game as good as Resistance: Fall of Man to offer on the first day of launch. And wait until the Metal Gear Solid's and Final Fantasy's come out for Sony until you claim Xbox has better name titles. Second, look up the price of a blu-ray DVD player. Then, look at the price of the PS3 which INCLUDES a blu-ray player. Most people b**** and MOAN about the price of the PS3, but the thing is a HOSS. You think the 360 is a great media "extender"? Well, the ps3 can be your media CENTER. Pop in a 500 gig HD into the ps3 and enjoy the OS and blu-ray player and come back to me. Third, the controller is a matter of opinion and feel. I think the Xbox controllers are clunky, the buttons are smashed too close together and overall, it's difficult to use. I feel the PS3 controller is better designed for the human hand and the way human response works. I find it more comfortable to hold, and certainly more easy to use. But the point is, the controller is a matter of personal opinion.

QUOTE(soxsr08 @ Jan 20, 2007 -> 12:16 AM) The Oscar nominations are to be announced this coming tuesday, January 23rd. So I decided to post my predictions for the major catergories. Add yours aswell. I'll add a winners prediction thread after the nominees are announced. Best Picture The Departed Dreamgirls The Queen Little Miss Sunshine Babel Dark Horses: Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, Letters From Iwo Jima You're dreaming on that one. It was funny, sure, but it just another attempt at Wes Anderson humor. And Anderson's movies are superior in EVERY way (screenplay, comedy and especially aesthetics), yet, he's never been nominated for ANYTHING. Letter's From Iwo Jima probably will be in there, but I've yet to see Pan's Labyrinth and I'm excited to do so.

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 07:41 PM) If only I was alive in 1975 to go to one of those Rolling Thunder Shows I've seen him 3 times since early 2005 and he has gotten better every single time Did he play the guitar or piano?

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) "The Descent" is the greatest horrow movie of all-time. Period. That's laughable. The Descent is PURE trash.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:02 PM) I haven't tried the multiplayer stuff yet, is it worth giving it a shot? I've been stuck on the single player mode. Great, great game for the ps3. I've barely touched the single player mode. I LOVE playing capture the flag online. There are other modes too. If you just like killing people, there's deathmatch with up to 40 players. There are also other modes, but I can't tell you much about them because I haven't really played them.

You've never seen roads THIS icy... http://www.fazed.net/video/?id=566

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 09:59 PM) Anyone got Resitance online names that I can add? BobDylanRH. Let's play sometime.

QUOTE(shoota @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 10:28 PM) My boss told me a story about his youth, how drinking 3-5 raw eggs a day for 5 days will give you a huge load. So I thought I'd surprise the girlfriend this weekend. Funniest thing I've read in a long time.

QUOTE(MHizzle85 @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 01:46 AM) don't feel bad, i once went to a game with a few friends and one of the girls that was there goes "What's Dye doing in the outfield?" "Isn't he supposed to hit only?" I once went to a game with a girl and when the game started, it started with a bunch of foul balls. She says, "I didn't know they gave balls to the fans before the game started."

Oh my god, man. I can't believe some of the stuff that blends. I'm pissed they ripped us off on the crowbar one though.

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 08:57 PM) very true, volume 5 is up there with blonde on blonde for me That's my avatar. Dylan is one of the greatest live performers ever, if not THE greatest.