it is rather suspicious that you don't question any of the other posters or their choices.
If you're paranoid, perhaps. I didn't pick up on anyone else because I looked at the latest page of this thread first. I replied to you and left it there. I may go and visit the first few pages, but if I think the suggestion is ridiculous then I won't.
actually, it is you being an ass. actually, to the point, it is as if you are very jealous of someone pointing out the beauty in a film that you are incapable of noticing or didn't notice before or in the same way. you are not the artistic type.
How many times do I need to have to point out to you that this is about the
importance of the film, not whether I personally liked it or not. I haven't really gotten into my views of my enjoyment or otherwise of the film, but if you feel the need to make more shit up about my views, as you have done here, you go right ahead, and I'll happily ignore you.
it was already explained but you refuse to accept it. there are others who also share a similar evaluation and you refuse to acknowledge that also. that's your choice, opinion and what you choose to have cognitive dissonance of.
Let's try this again: I'm not concerned with whether you like the film or not. I'm not concerned with how popular the film is, with whether other people share your views or not. I am asking you about the
importance of the film to the sci-fi genre. Can you answer that?
not in the same existentialist context where you question if humanity does or doesn't deserve extinction. it combined a new-age, philosophy, religion and science perspective.
Have you even seen Silent Running? Then there's The Day the Earth Stood Still back in the 50s, Omega Man and the like, all of which raise similar issues, the latter with more than a little philosophy, religion and science.
But okay, other than mixing things up in a different manner to other films (which is pretty much a given unless a straight remake), why is Sunshine
important to the genre?
No shit. i already answered that but again, you refuse to see it or acknowledge it. i can't change your mind or what you see/don't see.
Where have you explained how important it is? You've said you liked it. You've said others have liked it. You've provided links to attest to that. But the importance? Still waiting. If I've missed it, apologies - please post it again.
i've already explained this for the various aspects of this film but you refuse to acknowledge it.
No, you've said why you like it.
you don't see how this film has influenced the art style and psychological and existential probing of some science fiction films after this.
Such as?
even if most of the public does not take notice; i guarantee directors, writers and producers took/take note and know when something is unique or in what way or what they can siphon from it.
in other words, they are not as unaware as you are. they know what is good or risky and what is going to bank. they also are aware of what the general public would be okay with and tweak it to their palate, even if it may disagree with their own vision. sometimes, people just do what they want to do such as indie films.
So you're not going to provide anything to support your assertion of importance, and just go with your generalisation that those in the industry will have taken something from it?
Nope. it's just that you are a typical mainstreamist, even when it comes what is considered 'important'. it's either the classics or the more well-known/popular science fiction.
??? Classics are usually considered classics for a reason. As for being considered important, surely it's not surprising that a reasonable passage of time has to pass before one can truly see a work's legacy and importance. Some stand out immediately, such as Avatar's pioneering 3D usage, but otherwise why do you think it wouldn't take time, that most of those seen as the most important are not often the most recent?
it was already noted on several aspects of this film, but again, you refuse to acknowledge it. you keep this shit up and it's gonna get much uglier than you expect. either i will get infracted or i will have to report you for intellectual dishonesty. it is actually not me that is being illogical, it is actually you, who refuses or just not able to notice how this film is unique or influenced subsequent films after, in various ways.
There's no intellectual dishonesty on my part, so I'll have to go with the former - if that's where you wish to take it.
Second, being unique is not a reason for a film to be considered important.
Third, you keep saying that it has influenced subsequent films... where? What films? How? And please, don't just revert to saying what you like about the film.
but you do not accept that because it's an 'artistic' medium but you are feigning for a tangible answer when it is abstract.
No, I'm really just looking for an answer to the question of why it should be considered important... not why you happen to like it.
i can read into your motivation and that is you believe it's not important and there is nothing to change that, no matter what. you obviously have your mind made up and it will not matter what anyone else's evaluation or opinion is. you are feigning at this point because what is offered is something you either will ignore or not acknowledge as important or true.
Then you are mistaken. I think it's too early to say whether it's important or not. I personally haven't seen any influence of it in other films, but then I could be wrong. So what is there to suggest it should be considered important. Note, you liking the film is not a reason.
you are also being quite the asshole singling me out and my choice in a thread full of choices that could be construed as inconsequential but you are using a pretense that it's just logic you are trying to understand but it's actually a weird type of nosiness.
I responded to your post. Is that not how it's done on forums such as this? The notion of Sunshine being considered important piqued my curiosity. You either seem incapable or unwilling to actually provide any support for your assertion of its importance, beyond your irrelevant liking of the film.
you are actually more interested in how i think and why i can evaluate art and film in the way i do more than the film itself.
I assure you that how you think and your evaluation of art is really not my concern. I am solely interested in why you think the film
important. You have put it up for consideration by posting it here, and I am asking you for why - since all you have posted thus far is your personal opinion of the film, shared or otherwise.
this is because artists have that uncanny ability to take notice or take note of some aspects that are unique that most others may miss or overlook just as i can bet a dollar to a donut, unlike yourself, that other directors, producers and concept artists (actual professionals) did take note of sunshine and what makes it original and mimic them in their own way. that's the legacy.
So tell me where those things can be seen! Why do you not want to?
you are not able to see this because you are too black/white in your evaluation. it was obvious wine rhen you critiqued this film. you critique it from an audience 'only' perspective, not as a design or concept or artist perspective.
Lol! I gave a brief response regarding my personal enjoyment of it as a film - so yes, from an audience perspective. This isn't the thread to analyse the film in detail as to what we liked or didn't like. This thread is about (or at least I thought was about) is whether the work is... and I use this word again...
important.
As said, I am not aware of "Sunshine"'s importance that you can clearly see, and so am asking you, the one who can see it, where it can be found. Can you do that, please?