Layman Pascal Movies, like everything else in culture, should be judged by their quality not by their forms of content and the material we associate with them. So Transcendence is kind of awful. However the residual optimism of its finale is edifying and certainly we can draw parallels (not between the film and reality but perhaps between what the film reminds us of and reality) with the emergence of better technology and more advanced, faster adapting procedures of intelligence upon which our hopes must be based.
Edwyrd Burj I disagree that movies should be judged purely by their quality, if by that you mean story line, plotting, character development etc. But you’re entitled to your opinion. My only focus was on its content and implications, and how that relates to themes this thread. On that score its good quality in my book.
Layman Pascal I don’t mean storyline, plotting, per se. I mean that quality, style and interestingness of each the aspects of performance should be the primary evaluation mechanism. And, as per above, I think there are many good ways to tie the content and its potential implications into our favorite themes. That’s totally valid. But I don’t agree that counts as good quality any more than the fact that I love chubby black chicks means that Hefty Negresses IV is a good film.
Edwyrd Burj I’m not arguing that it was a good film because it wasn’t. I connecting its theme and elements as metaphors for the emerging collaborative commons. And how it displays a grounded, postmetaphysically spiritual enaction of transcendence.
The latter is a major bone of contention in the forum, how materialism runs rampant without a transcendent function. However that function in critics’ minds still tends toward the metaphysical. I find that the movie, through my contextualization of course, provides imo a more postmetaphysical expression. I.e., the movie is a springboard for this discussion, its merits notwithstanding. Sort of like how you use Trump, a fascist demagogue, to springboard discussions of integral topics despite his utter lack of ‘quality.’
And note how your criticism diverts away from the focus of the discussion on postmeta transcendence. What do you think about the topic?