Because YOU say so and you are far more superior than those of us that hated the ending. I have my degree, I have worked constantly and consistantly for over 20 years....without being laid off. I am still making a fair indome in a shaky market, with little concern for job concern. Yeah, I am the one without functioning senses.

You, yourself called it art. Art is interpretive. You would be one of those experts that would purchase a 5 year olds finger painting if some one told you it was done by a master. ART IS INTERPRETIVE!

Oh, and just because YOU say it is a direct realism, doesn't mean it is. For years humans thought it was a direct realism that the world was flat. And they probably believed it because someons as smart as you SAID SO.

I think its fine that you hate the ending.

I also think that my metaphor is getting twisted all around. My clarification that you quoted about the sky appearing blue to everyone with functioning senses was not tied into the movie. That was literally applied to how humans perceive the sky. If our senses are functioning, we see a clear sky as blue. Period.

Now, into our epistemological discussion: your flat-world example is a good point. I didn't claim that direct realism was necessarily the case, I suggested that we assume it for the sake of my sky metaphor. I don't think, though, that the inability for the race to see past the notion of a flat Earth is connected to the direct realism/indirect realism. If anything, it seems an indictment of Kant's "a priori synthetic," which the principle example is Kant saying humans perceive the world through Euclidean geometry.

Haha classic. You know you look like a fool in this thread with no taste for the arts so you choose to change the subject and attack me.ROFL

Pathetic. And what fat ugly chicks have I picked up on my bike??? The girls I get are all 8s or better.

Again, the Transporter 3 comes out next weekend. That should be right up your alley (and you could hopefully follow it as well).ROFL

I'm sure Reaper and Baby Lee are thrilled to have an enlightened, cultured fellow like Midnight Vulture on their side of the discussion. LMAO

The thought of you calling me a fool is comparable to a reerun calling einstein stupid. I suggest you pick on someone less enlightened for I am like every chick "2" or better that you've ever come across. Way out of your league.

Now as far as this movie being "art" I disagree. The artist was the writer. The director job is to interpret the story. Second I have no clue what transporter 1, 2, or 3 is.

Btw, I hope you didn't steal the computer that you're typing on. Karmas a bitch.

I brought that up and Baby Lee hit me with his dime store psychology. Prepare to be analyzed.

Meh, I don't mind. People like what they like. I just think it's silly (and arrogant) to judge. The whole "if you didn't like it, you're just not smart enough to "get" it" argument has always annoyed me. Even for things I like... and I did enjoy NCFOM.

This would be a place where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. You're saying Scorscese's "Raging Bull" wasn't artistic because it was an interpretation of someone else's memoir? Kubrick's "2001" isn't art because it is "interpreting" an Arthur C. Clarke book?

I stand by my statement.

Well since you liked it you must not be very smart.

I have scientific evidence in that Midnight Vulture did indeed like it.



:D

Heh.

I think I'd have liked it more if I had never heard a thing about it before seeing it.

Damn, homey.

OK, then. How about William Shakespeare? He wrote some of the greatest plays of all time. Many of them were inspired by or even directly adapted from other, obscure literary or oral works. Would you contend that Shakespeare's plays aren't art because of their interpretive nature?

No I would say that if that be case it is indeed art, yet not all of it was his.

If Shakespeare's plays are art (with partial credit going to someone else) then why not directors? They are taking a source material and transporting it into a wildly different medium. The NCFOM film is an altogether different piece of art than the novel, imo, because of the room for artistic expression that directors have.

So if I read a book and then I tell you about it, is that art? It's a wildly different medium.