Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 177

Thread: Shakespeare.

  1. #136
    Shakespeare was the JJ Abrams of his day..... he didn't have any original ideas and recycled well-worn and accepted standard stories but made them popular for a mass audience.

    The only difference between Shakespeare and Abrams is Willi S used less lens-flare.

  2. #137
    Originally Posted by Manticore View Post (Source)
    Shakespeare was the JJ Abrams of his day..... he didn't have any original ideas and recycled well-worn and accepted standard stories but made them popular for a mass audience.
    Ummm... No. Just "no".

    Shakespeare was the opposite of Abrams. Story-telling was rather formulaic in his day. Stories had a particular format that everyone was expected to follow because "that's how it was done". Shakespeare's contribution was to destroy that formula by adding depth and prose not seen before. Abram's, on the other hand, all he knows is Hollywood corporate formula that pretty much removes all depth from his stories and characters. One of these two made his career by braking the mold, the other made his career by fitting himself into the mold...

  3. #138
    Originally Posted by EDanaII View Post (Source)
    Ummm... No. Just "no".

    Shakespeare was the opposite of Abrams. Story-telling was rather formulaic in his day. Stories had a particular format that everyone was expected to follow because "that's how it was done". Shakespeare's contribution was to destroy that formula by adding depth and prose not seen before. Abram's, on the other hand, all he knows is Hollywood corporate formula that pretty much removes all depth from his stories and characters. One of these two made his career by braking the mold, the other made his career by fitting himself into the mold...
    Um just yes. They both recycled previously existing stories for their works.

    Your qualitative opinion of their work(s) has no relevance to the historical fact(s).

  4. #139
    Originally Posted by Manticore View Post (Source)
    Um just yes. They both recycled previously existing stories for their works.
    I never said he didn't borrow stories. Many people borrow stories. A story is made excellent in how it is told, not in how original it is. Compare the original Psycho to the '98 remake, or the Ladykillers to the '04 one, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town with the '02 version.

    Your qualitative opinion of their work(s) has no relevance to the historical fact(s).
    Except it's not MY qualitative opinion. My opinion comes from other sources. Sources that might tell you that Abrams "writing" is a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

    Shakespeare, on the other hand, they will tell you, began by following the accepted form of his day:
    Shakespeare wrote his earlier plays in the traditional style of the time. He relied heavily on using drawn out—sometimes extravagant—metaphors and narcissisms. His style often sounded pompous and pretentious. Shakespeare’s first original comedy called “The Two Gentlemen of Verona” (1590) shows an undeveloped and conflicting writing style.
    -- https://www.freelancewriting.com/cre...m-shakespeare/
    The article goes on to say:
    Shakespeare gradually developed and changed his writing style from the traditional form to a more self-expressive style. He progressively used his metaphors and tropes to the desires of the melodrama itself.
    "Changed his writing style from the form of the day", but he didn't stop there:
    After completing Hamlet, Shakespeare adopted a more centered, swift, distinct, and non-repetitive writing style. He began to use more run-on lines, uneven pauses and stops, and excessive alterations in sentence length and structure. Macbeth, his most darkest and dynamic plays, shows this refined writing style in which Shakespeare used wording that sprinted from one unconnected analogy or metaphor to a different one, forcing the reader to complete the “sense” and subliminal meaning.
    So, he just didn't break the convention of his day, he forced his audience to think. One of the reasons why he is so admired.

    Abrams, on the other hand, entire writing style is built around his love of Star Wars. Just witness what he did to Star Trek. He doesn't want his audiences to think. He just wants them to sit back and go "OMG!" as he did with Lost. He's only capable of delivering fast-paced 1980s+ style movies that don't have a lot of depth, which is why he was picked for the Force Awakens. He has yet to write something equal to the Searchers, Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, etc... Right now, he's the darling of corporate Hollywood and isn't even anywhere near Spielberg's equal, let alone Shakespeare. He may change and evolve someday to the same level as Shakespeare, but I ain't holdin' my breath on that one.

    Depth of Character:
    Shakespeare wrote about people who seemed real instead of using stock characters as was common in the theater during his days and in the generations that came before it. This literary device allowed him to make characters like MacBeth or Hamlet sympathetic even though they did some terrible things throughout the course of the play. It is because the Bard made them seem real and human, but flawed that he was able to do this.
    In other words, Shakespeare's character's choices drove the story forward. Abram's character's choices are driven forward by the story. They often behave in ways that moves that plot forward but doesn't make a whole lot of sense in terms of actual human behavior. For example, Rey reading Kylo's mind and suddenly developing Jedi powers (and light-saber skills) instead of the years of training as one might expect.

    But, once again, note the first line: "Shakespeare wrote about people who seemed real instead of using stock characters as was common in the theater during his days and in the generations that came before it." I.e. he broke the mold. Whereas, with Rey, Abrams is forcing her into the mold of the Jedi just so she can be a Jedi even though it doesn't make a lot of sense.

    The article continues:
    Additionally, Shakespeare’s work deviated from that of his contemporaries in that he wrote for every type of person who came to the theater or read poems, not just for the upper class as was common.
    Once again, he breaks the accepted formula of his time by appealing to a broader audience, whereas Abrams, as with all post 1980+ corporate formula movies, tends to just appeal to the 16 - 36 male demographic and little else.

    And those are the facts. Ones that I can cite from multple sources. Which is exactly how my opinion was formed: by taking the time to study and appreciate the man, rather than a casual and unfounded comparison of the two. Yes, they have similarities, but to say that those similarities are all that matters while elevating one to the same level as the other? Nope, sorry, that's not really understanding the facts. That's like glancing at a duck and a platypus and declaring they're of the same species.

  5. #140
    His works are the pinnacle of British culture. I guess in an age of internationalism it's uncool to be proud of your nation and its icon's.

  6. #141
    Are you sure you are really, and historically, assessing these two against each other as reflections and products of their times? It seems you go a bit too far into characterisation rather than context there.

    Also I don't have a lot of faith in modern scholastic opinions of Shaky. Most modern universities are boltholes for literate ignoramuses.

  7. #142
    I can make the same assertion about your assessment. The key difference being that your position states that they're just like each other because they're popular. I'm saying, no, just because they were popular doesn't mean they're just like each other. And, I cite my reasons for why. I'm sorry if you don't except modern scholastic opinions, but most of us do, and they're better than a casual observation that they both were popular.

    Not trying to be insulting here, just saying it how I see it.

  8. #143
    Originally Posted by EDanaII View Post (Source)
    I can make the same assertion about your assessment. The key difference being that your position states that they're just like each other because they're popular. I'm saying, no, just because they were popular doesn't mean they're just like each other. And, I cite my reasons for why. I'm sorry if you don't except modern scholastic opinions, but most of us do, and they're better than a casual observation that they both were popular.

    Not trying to be insulting here, just saying it how I see it.
    You may make an assertions you like (within the Terms and Conditions of Use of this site) but I see modern scholastic opinion as not being worth a pinch of........................... space dust; at least not in terms of anything that could be called popular culture in Shakeboy's day or in contemporary culture.

    I'd be interested to know how many of the "scholastic fans" in this thread have qualifications at that level of education.

  9. #144
    [Voice="Obi Wan Kenobi'] These aren't the facts you're looking for. [waves hand] You can go about your business; move along. [/Voice]


  10. #145
    Alonya, as a person who uses their Asperger's to justify a permanent state of unemployment, I'd say that nothing they tried to teach you in school really benefited you. Or anybody else, for that matter. Not sure why you feel the need to pick on the arts.

  11. #146
    Originally Posted by jasonbarron View Post (Source)
    ..........I'd say that nothing they tried to teach you in school really benefited you. Or anybody else, for that matter.
    A voice of reason level post. I totally agree.

    Originally Posted by Manticore View Post (Source)
    I'd be interested to know how many of the "scholastic fans" in this thread have qualifications at that level of education.
    So; no cogent answer to this request which puts some numbers against people's understanding of the "scholastic" system.

    That pretty well says all there needs to be said about some replies in this thread.

  12. #147
    Originally Posted by jasonbarron View Post (Source)
    Alonya, as a person who uses their Asperger's to justify a permanent state of unemployment, I'd say that nothing they tried to teach you in school really benefited you. Or anybody else, for that matter. Not sure why you feel the need to pick on the arts.
    I refer to my aspergers because it's true. You may not like it, but the fact is, I was really badly targeted because of it.

    Attitudes towards mental health sucks in the UK. You think I like being unemployed? You think I like the fact that I have to waste my days playing video games? I'll tell you why I do that. It is because people are so prejudiced against anything that isn't "normal", that not only do they say "no, you can't have a job", but they actively try to make your life worse. They spread rumours, provoke you into psychotic fits, and at best, only try to viciously wear you down until you give up.

    I'm happy for you, with the construction company you say you own on your profile. Truly.

    But with respect, this means you are simply not qualified to say what it's like to not only be born at the bottom, but have people aggressively keeping you there. Some even try to make you go lower. It is horrible, and I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you view the arts as a waste of time.

    But for me, they are, as they will not get me out of this dump.

  13. #148
    Originally Posted by Manticore View Post (Source)
    So; no cogent answer to this request which puts some numbers against people's understanding of the "scholastic" system.

    That pretty well says all there needs to be said about some replies in this thread.
    ???

    This appears to be nothing more to me than a shifting of the burden of proof...

  14. #149
    Originally Posted by EDanaII View Post (Source)

    This appears to be nothing more to me than a shifting of the burden of proof...
    No; and you didn't answer the question.

    I don't see it that way at all. I am looking for statistical significance. People are talking about "scholastic" systems so where are they in the system.

    Does anyone in this thread have any relevant qualifications at all?

  15. #150
    Originally Posted by Alonya Ruslana View Post (Source)
    I refer to my aspergers because it's true. You may not like it, but the fact is, I was really badly targeted because of it.

    Attitudes towards mental health sucks in the UK. You think I like being unemployed? You think I like the fact that I have to waste my days playing video games? I'll tell you why I do that. It is because people are so prejudiced against anything that isn't "normal", that not only do they say "no, you can't have a job", but they actively try to make your life worse. They spread rumours, provoke you into psychotic fits, and at best, only try to viciously wear you down until you give up.

    I'm happy for you, with the construction company you say you own on your profile. Truly.

    But with respect, this means you are simply not qualified to say what it's like to not only be born at the bottom, but have people aggressively keeping you there. Some even try to make you go lower. It is horrible, and I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you view the arts as a waste of time.

    But for me, they are, as they will not get me out of this dump.
    Other than an exercise in self pity, what does this have to do with my post?

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast