Don’t don’t don’t, don’t say that. Individual aesthetic standards, not being engulfed by collective consciousness, are the key soil for the healthy development of literature and art. Everyone knows that the Lord of the Rings scores are very high, and this movie no longer needs to rely on the current scores to set off its status. At this time, the low scores of ordinary people in modern times are more valuable. Because these evaluations illustrate a very macroscopic problem called the change of social rhythm. In a fast-paced society where young people work overtime every day at 996, the public has very little free time at their disposal, and there is no way to enjoy slow-paced literary works. You can take one day off in a week. Your movie is one hour longer than other movies, which means I have one hour less time for shopping or rest. The fast-food culture and the rise of short videos, at first glance, are just a victory for high-frequency dopamine. Low-grade is a blow to high-grade dimensionality. But when you dig into the people behind them, you will find that many users are those who clearly It is the existence of the so-called “high taste”-assuming that those who are accustomed to watching literary films and classic literature are defined as “high taste” (of course I don’t fully agree with this). Everyone is just busier than before. If you go back to the age when nine to five is still the mainstream, I believe that everyone will be much more tolerant of slow-paced literary works. After all, the charm of this is something fast-paced literary works can never possess. Unfortunately, since there is less spare time, entertainment that takes less time will naturally become the preferred choice of most people. This is the first point I want to make. The second point is that the literal expression of this question is full of arrogance. The ruins cannot be destroyed. The subject regards his cultural aesthetics as the noble cultural aesthetics. This is very similar to some older generations in the literary world who have not made any outstanding contributions except for their qualifications. As a result, their evaluation of online literature is that “Internet literature destroyed literature.” There is a saying in “Detective Sherlock Holmes”: “It is a taboo to draw conclusions before collecting evidence. People will unconsciously twist the facts to accommodate the conclusion, instead of subordinating the conclusion to the facts.” Twenty years ago, “Lord of the Rings” When it was released, the national income was much lower than it is today. How many people would spend thirty or fifty yuan in the cinema to watch a genuine movie? In cities outside the second tier, most people may not have been in a serious movie theater. Counting the re-screening, the box office of “Lord of the Rings” in the Mainland only exceeded 100 million. It is at least an order of magnitude away from the base number of viewers of the hot movies in recent years. So you have to understand that if there is no network, if there is no media upgrade, most people don’t even have the right to score. Why do bad reviews have increased? I think a very important reason is: more people who were not qualified to enter a movie theater are now qualified to enter a movie theater, and even they are qualified to evaluate the quality of a movie. This phenomenon makes some people panic, because the right to speak is no longer firmly in their hands. Once the superiority felt threatened, they began to define the one-star person as the destroyer of modern cultural aesthetics. You said “Lord of the Rings” is good, I admit that “Lord of the Rings” is good, but if the general public does not pay, it means that this is not the best choice for commercial films in today’s era. This is a fact. And there are many new movie viewers who are willing to give a five-point, re-show box office of 5kw, as a movie that can be watched on the Internet, this number is really not low. This is also true. Do people who give good reviews necessarily have a higher taste than those who give bad reviews? Not really. Because “Lord of the Rings” can be regarded as a classic in the magic film at best, but it is only a matter of time before it is surpassed with the development speed of film technology, film concept, and film pattern. Verne wrote “From the Earth to the Moon”. Today, we are still shocked and still regarded as a classic, but what is more shocking is that people in that era had this idea, but if this book is put to someone today Written on the body intact, we will only ask one sentence: “Do you know that there is something called a rocket?” History is rolling forward, and the trend is unstoppable. If you don’t want to be left behind by history, I think abandoning your arrogance is the most basic criterion.

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
5 months ago

Don’t do that, the question is really too fishing…First, we should advocate the “freedom of scoring” of cultural products. That is, you can support that a bad film is a “five-star” and a “treasure” of your own; you can also question whether a classic should be worth a high score. This is entirely a manifestation of personal will. You can vent your emotions for no reason, including emotions of appreciation and emotions of disgust. In the same way, you can think that a classic band or album is ugly. I gave King Crimson to a lot of people, but in the end there were very few likes and even thought KC was ugly. You can also think that a song that is bad and vulgar in the eyes of others is nice, beautiful, and sounds of nature, such as…Forget it, it’s not a sinner. I think the most beautiful thing about this era is that everyone can judge a thing through their own opinions and thoughts, whether you think “Lord of the Rings” is not good, or King Crimson is not good; or vice versa. Most people have the reason of the majority, and the minority has the reason of the minority. You can even respond with kindness or malice. This is the right given to most people by the times and technology. People spend money on tickets, so it’s okay to score low, no matter what the reason is. If low scores are not allowed, is there any need for scoring? Second, let’s go back to the individual. Since the criterion of a thing is “individual”, in other words, we have to accept the choice of others and not extend it outward. In other words, we should not make any extensions to creators and other reviewers outside of scoring. For example, people who give “Lord of the Rings” one star are “unliterate” people who are “destroyed by short videos.” For example, people who give “Lord of the Rings” five stars are “pretending to be criminals.” For example, I think that people who don’t understand King Crimson are not good. For example, people who listen to King Crimson are “pretending to be a criminal.” Again, the standard of like or not is personal, even unreasonable. I know that all the content I have said above will certainly not be heard by many people. Because after the rise of the mobile Internet, my biggest feeling is that “everyone has their own superiority.” It may be because of the superior place of birth and work, or the superiority of height and weight. This is the rigid need of the current society. But I still hope that everyone can calmly view the superiority of themselves and others, and try not to judge or criticize them as much as possible. This is just a personal evaluation, there is no need to go online. Decent point. Third, although I don’t watch short videos, I personally reject the so-called “sinking”. Until now, my “Tik Tok” and “Kaishou” logos in the App Store are all “acquisitions”-of course, you can think of me I’m trying to reveal my own superiority, interpreting and misunderstanding at will-but I don’t think this is “destroying”, nor do I think this is “the abyss”, but the world is like this, it’s just that the mobile Internet itself and Technology presents these things, nothing more. In fact, the “pop culture” of any era is vulgar. Back to King Crimson. In the 70s, because of the popularity of Pink Floyd, Yes, and King Crimson, the whole rock Genre was almost avant-garde rock; but later, because this thing was so popular, it exceeded the degree, everyone thought you played too complicated, simple Is it not good? Only then did the new wave and punk, a simple and direct Genre wave, and even the punk revolution in 1977. In the “avant-garde rock era”, these bands were vulgar; and now, the surviving, well-known and classic Pink Floyd, Yes, and King Crimson at the time have become less vulgar. There is hardly any fashion in any era, it’s sunny, spring and snowy, because fashion is for the masses and stimulates the senses. It is impossible for any group of aesthetics to reach the level of avant-garde. If avant-garde is “the public”, then why is it still called “pioneer”? Of course, I hope that more and more people can gradually understand the process of these things from birth to rise through popular culture, to understand the creative ideas and logic of the whole work. But I can’t control others, nor do I have the power to control them. My energy is also limited. Just like when many people expressed their sadness about the disbanding of stupid punk, I would naturally not have too much emotion when I only listened to a few Apple commercials. But my friend allows me to have no feelings; and in this question, I only feel a kind of arrogance. It’s really annoying.

heloword
5 months ago

So what is the correct cultural aesthetic? Five stars/four stars? Overwhelmingly acclaimed/received? Watching movies is not for approval. You can have your own understanding, and others can have it too. Think of Montesquieu’s words, “I don’t agree with your point of view, but I swear to defend your right to speak.” If there is no room for discussion, then this is the greatest tragedy. When I watched “Lord of the Rings” for the first time, I felt that apart from the magnificent visual effects, there was nothing particularly profound. Compared to “Shawshank’s Redemption” and “Farewell My Concubine”, it may feel a little bit far away from my favorite “Sea Pianist”. But one day later, I was bored in the dormitory, so I did it again. I saw the afternoon meal all of a sudden from the morning and finished the trilogy. At that moment I felt so good! It was so shocking that I realized that the master’s fairness and mundane “greatness”-in troubled times, always had my original intention. Even Gandalf, a gray-robed wizard, can’t predict the final direction of this continent. I think it may be because of life, there has never been logic. Every generation has every generation’s understanding of film and television. And everyone at different ages has a different understanding of movies. What’s more, sometimes, the unknown others are happy, but the others are stupid. The public has a benchmark in the minds of the public, and this is the right of the public. If criticism is not free, praise is meaningless.

helpyme
5 months ago

What’s the point? All Douban 250 movies are shown in theaters again, at least dozens of them have to be squeezed out. There will also be a bunch of people yelling at “boring” and “asleep”. You have to know, not everyone loves to watch movies, and not everyone loves to watch good movies that require a high degree of concentration. I have only watched the “Lord of the Rings” series once, but the more mindless “Resident Evil” “I watched the series at least five times. I know that “Lord of the Rings” is more awesome, but “Resident Evil” is cool, not tired to watch, it’s that simple. I like Hou Hsiao-hsien, Li Ang, and Shih Yuwa’s movies, but if they are put in a theater, their movies are definitely not as good as Godzilla and Skull Island. Don’t rise to the height of aesthetics. The requirements are too high. Not everyone likes to think about some complicated things, or likes art, likes classics, and not everyone is interested in a particular type of film.

sina156
5 months ago

Don’t talk about “destroying the cultural aesthetics of modern people.” The Lord of the Rings incident is just a proof that it has gone out of business. Don’t think that only “modern people” will give 1 star to the rerun of The Lord of the Rings. When was the first movie of The Lord of the Rings premiered? It may be in the minds of enthusiasts, that is, a few years ago. But in fact that was already 20 years ago. Twenty years, brothers. A popular game 20 years ago, now that it has a reset version, can you still play it? Not to mention that you still have sentimental factors, and those who were still young, have never played or watched them, don’t even have sentimental factors. Taking a step back, do you think the Lord of the Rings 20 years ago was well received by everyone? wrong. The Lord of the Rings 20 years ago hadn’t been out of the circle. Not so many people went to see the Lord of the Rings. Those who would have been able to get one star might not have watched it at all. The Internet 20 years ago was not as developed as it is now. At that time, there was neither Zhihu nor Weibo, or even Douban. Those who would have given a star would have no place to rate them for you to see. Besides, as a spectator, I go to the movies to watch movies, not “culture”. I am unhappy, so I naturally have to give a bad review. Don’t get everything culturally involved. Don’t blame short videos. This is not a matter of the length of the film. In recent years, it has not been the case that there have been no movies with a length of about 3 hours. It is also 3 hours for the reunion 4. Although there are many complaints, the box office is also very good.

yahoo898
5 months ago

Actually, this kind of me is smiling…why? I am a little selfish. For example, investment. For a good thing, the more concentrated the chips, the smaller the crowd, and the fewer people they know, the better. There is no need to let everyone know about sharing. It’s impossible. And it has its own flaws. For example, I can understand pop music, but I can’t listen to pure classical music. This will also be laughed at by the Fang family. So it’s not good to blame others. Comment on The Lord of the Rings is the convenience and rights that the world bestows on ordinary people in this era. Of course ignoring the Lord of the Rings is also a right. Many things, understand naturally. If you don’t understand, you don’t need to wake him up. Church him, the price is too high. ~ I put the words here. The future may look like this. The Lord of the Rings will be passed down, the original work and the movie. Many things that are popular in our time are just a flash in the pan. I am afraid that its life is not as long as the physical life of the audience. A divine comedy can be popular for half a year. The Lord of the Rings and the original have been tested by one or two generations. It even opened up fantasy literature. The so-called: There must be those who do not stand by shape, do not rely on strength, survive without waiting for life, and do not die with death. Others have been popular for almost a hundred years. You have to be more humane, things in the future will be slow. So now, there is also a need for diversification. That being the case, why bother with the one-star reviews of a few people. The so-called Ercao’s body will be destroyed with fame, and will not waste the eternal flow of rivers. There is no need to regret it for a long time. It’s really unnecessary. Good things everyone will miss. It is impossible for everyone to enjoy all the good things. For example, some people love big Yangko and can’t watch ballet. You can’t say that he was wrong. I can’t listen to the classics, can’t comprehend the top physics knowledge, and you can’t say that I am wrong.

leexin
5 months ago

In this short video, it should be said that works like “Lord of the Rings” have a threshold. One threshold is the understanding of the history of world literature. The other threshold is “I see the Lord of the Rings, I am awesome.” This kind of “cultural aesthetic” is something a few people can experience, and it shouldn’t be too demanding on the public. To be precise, most people in any era don’t care about “cultural aesthetics.” Short videos are just a manifestation of this phenomenon. There are other manifestations without short videos, such as web texts. Therefore, spraying “the public has no aesthetics” is a theme that many media or many people will adopt (wealth code) to show that they have high aesthetics (I also have this problem). The objective fact is that the public just don’t care about aesthetics. You can’t force others to understand what you understand. Similarly, if others understand what you don’t understand, don’t go up and say that they are bad. There are also situations where you are so excited to watch and discuss with everyone that you all understand, in fact none of you (such as the attacking giant). But now in this era, everyone is flying to each other in their own information cocoon rooms. It doesn’t matter anymore. Just enjoy this era and observe everyone flying to each other. It’s fun to observe human beings. Just come back to add one more after reviewing “The Fellowship of the Ring”. Works like “Lord of the Rings” do require a certain amount of life experience to better understand the theme of this work. When I was a child, I could see the changes in the psychology and relationship of the characters, but the main theme of the work can only be vaguely felt. It is the passage that Sam said to Mr. Frodo: Mr. Frodo: I can’t do this, Sam .Sam:I know.It’s all wrong. By rights, we shouldn’t even be here. But we are here.It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The one’s that really mattered, full of darkness and danger they were .And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end… Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was…When so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing…this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer.Those were the stories that stayed with you… that meant something.Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think Mr. Frodo, I do understand.I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going… because they were holding on to something.Mr. Frodo: What are we holding on to, Sam? Sam: That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it ‘s worth fighting for. But how much can a teenager understand this passage? At most, looking at the mountain is the first layer of the mountain. As for Mr. Tolkien, he created a language, opened the modern and modern Western magical epic creation template, laid the foundation of DND, these are all by-products in the process of cultural communication, “Song of Ice and Fire” is considered to be the theme Let’s inherit the mantle of the Lord of the Rings. Looking back and waiting to see the mountain or the third level of the mountain, the theme of the work of The Lord of the Rings is more in the world of Middle-earth, the story of how every living person chooses his own life track in the face of desire and despair, Gan Astoria knew that there was a Balrog in the mine, his life might end here, and the words he said to Frodo were to a certain extent to himself. The Lord of the Rings is not just the Lord of the Rings, it is the most primitive desire deep in everyone’s heart and the epitome of the entire human history. Although most people can only look at mountains as mountains, as long as someone can get the courage to face life from this work, then “Lord of the Rings” is immortal.

greatword
5 months ago

I think this matter, the pot may not really be a short video. When I was in high school, not long after the release of “Full of Golden Armor in the City”, the Chinese class talked about “Thunderstorm”. Because it is not a mandatory test, the teacher probably talked about the plot. As a result, a classmate said: Isn’t this plagiarizing “Golden Armor”? I know this person is stupid. But one thing is true. That is, after many adaptations of the masterpiece, tribute to plagiarism, many derivative works already have gimmicks no less than the original works, more eye-catching and easier to understand. This has caused some people’s reverse aesthetic fatigue [1]. In addition, another important reason is that the emergence of many “excellent” online literature has enriched everyone’s spiritual life. In contrast, works such as “The Lord of the Rings” are not detailed enough in setting. In fact, my main wish is to make my works have a world-class influence, maybe through the channel of film and television first, and slowly penetrate. Take “The Lord of the Rings” as an example. Go and see my work. My story setting is much more detailed than many foreign works.

loveyou
5 months ago

The Lord of the Rings was awarded one star because the new era and the new world allow the Lord of the Rings to be awarded one star, and also allow people who think that the Lord of the Rings is one star to go online to get one star for the Lord of the Rings.
People who can’t find their own position in the new world will definitely be disappointed. The last chapter of Shang Jun’s book is called the fixed points.
As I said, the world of survival will show fangs to the world of life sooner or later, and one star is the gentlest kind of fangs.

strongman
5 months ago

If the masses are really mobilized to rate various literary and artistic works, “Dream of Red Mansions” will probably also be one star (what is the relationship between the characters? All day long), Monet’s paintings are estimated to have negative scores (this painting is Can’t see clearly), Picasso can even be labeled as heresy (what is this painting, can this be a famous painting??). My grandmother is illiterate. One day she saw Lang Lang watching TV and said, this young man’s work is really easy, just two taps. I used to despise this idea, and then I think about it, she has been doing farm work all her life. It is indeed much easier for her to hit the piano keys. There is no need for wind and rain, no need to bend over to plant seedlings, and no need to finish the work. It’s easy. There is a threshold for art appreciation. How long has it been until the parents of the generation got rid of hunger and the whole nation began art education. Of course, as a fan of the Lord of the Rings for many years, I think “Lord of the Rings” is not yet at the level of art that requires a high threshold for appreciation. Although this makes me feel even more sad…how to avoid it, be more “literate”. Supplement: I saw someone wondering whether “Lord of the Rings” is art or not, it may be that I didn’t know what I meant. The art I’m talking about here is obviously a literary and artistic work that “needs a threshold to appreciate”. “Dream of Red Mansions” requires readers to at least have an understanding of classical Chinese and poetry, otherwise it will be difficult to feel the beauty; Monet and Picasso’s paintings also require the study of fine arts. It is normal for ordinary people to see the paintings of these two people and not feel shocked. . But the Lord of the Rings (movie) belongs to my mind as a movie that can be enjoyed without a high threshold. The plot inside is very rich, ups and downs, exciting, beautiful scenery, you don’t need to understand English (subtitles are enough), you don’t need to understand his creative background, and you don’t need to learn Elvish language specifically to feel the joys, sorrows and joys of the Elves (no If you understand poetry, you will really lose a lot of information when you watch the Dream of Red Mansions). I have a little cousin who is not good at studying, but watching the Lord of the Rings is like being fascinated, Ladu can’t leave. Therefore, in my impression, for a person with a basic education, appreciation of “Lord of the Rings” does not require a particularly high threshold.

stockin
5 months ago

The movie “Lord of the Rings”, whether it was rated negatively, moderately or well-reviewed, was evaluated by the audience who bought tickets into the movie theater and paid a lot of real money for support. Of course, they understand better than me and better than you understand. The only thing I can tell you clearly is that for the survival of Chinese cinema chains and the survival of the cinema staff, this movie has to be one star.

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x