Hyperactive.mp4
[Hide] (3.3MB, 720x480, 00:39) >>3348
>If a film is not interesting enough they could just talk without filling the "form".
I mean if someone doesn't want to talk extensively about something they didn't like that much or don't have the time they can just fill a quick form about the thing they saw, on the contrary if they liked it i suppose they can always elaborate more as you mentioned.
The form is like those small card synopsis one saw in libraries to very quickly check the inventory without having to see book by book.
Am i old enough to say i visited libraries with old school systems? it wasn't that long ago i swear
>>3349
>Care to share?
I suppose it can be seen in some threads from one of the /film/ shelters that migrated old stuff, i think we still have one of those around. Checking a bit there's the first "comment on last film seen" thread post-4cham located in the mummy of the old site, may allah forgive me for daring to utter this name, 8kun.
Saying they weren't educated enough is being unfair, anons probably are better back then than me today, their brevity and straight to the point emphasis is notable hence my intention to say you don't need long-winded texts if you don't want to do them, discovering new things and feedback is the intention.
>What movie is that screenshot from?
Just a silly idiosyncratic music video, 1984's Hyperactive by Thomas Dolby and Daniel Kleinman aka CGI director for James Bond intros.
Started seeing/listening again to Dolby recently because he's being blacklisted for wrongthink again and i remembered he had some really interesting ideas behind his bitching tracks.
I like that his cultivated image by the media of being a real nerd pop star got trashed and forgotten the day he started voicing scientists/researchers were overly dogmatic and not open-minded enough for research work to begin with. I don't know why he got so much heat, after all his most famous song shows scientists as either conmen, deranged or lobotomized by their peers.
Some old advertisement/personal stuff show quite unique storytelling devices that cannot be thrown into a full length work easily enough due to their complexity or experimental nature, i would like to think long enough on the fact some movies are several small, compact main works stringed between each other with mundane or pragmatic scenes that build up for the next main montage segments. Sometimes some movies have very few, some others have many, some are focused on actors' performance only, others in aesthetics, others in reflective and/or contemplative moments, others combine 2 or all and i want to remember what movies have everything with very few mundane enough link ups or ones that can be considered main works due to their quality.
A viewer needs rest but there's even art in resting the eyes, now i am also realizing that maybe movies are actually labeled depending on the nature of the main moments/segments/montages rather than the rest of movie, say if the cool scenes are 15 or so minutes out of a 90 minute movie perhaps the labelling is dependent of that but then narratively-speaking (which is the main factor in choosing) what if the main plot points happen in the other 75 minutes? that would make it an expositive-heavy movie? after all that's what it's for yet cinema should be storytelling via movement... guess i need to read more but i sure as hell think having many main segments is better than less if we can guarantee they will be all good.