Theory

[icycalm]

http://twitter.com/travisgoodspeed/stat ... 6656523265

C was designed not to stop you from doing dumb things, because that might make it more difficult for cyber cowboys to do clever things.

There are several passages in the second essay that connect to this.

[icycalm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zemeckis

Zemeckis applied only to University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts, and got into the Film School on the strength of an essay and a music video based on a Beatles song. Not having heard from the university itself, Zemeckis called and was told he had been rejected because of his average grades. The director gave an "impassioned plea" to the official on the other line, promising to go to summer school and improve his studies, and eventually convinced the school to accept him.[6] Arriving at USC that Fall, Zemeckis encountered a program that was, in his words, made up of "a bunch of hippies [and] considered an embarrassment by the university."[6] The classes were difficult, with professors constantly stressing how hard the movie business was. Zemeckis remembered not being much fazed by this, citing the "healthy cynicism" that had been bred into him from his Chicago upbringing.[6]

While at USC, Zemeckis developed a close friendship with the writer Bob Gale, who was also a student there. Gale later recalled, "The graduate students at USC had this veneer of intellectualism ... So Bob and I gravitated toward one another because we wanted to make Hollywood movies. We weren't interested in the French New Wave. We were interested in Clint Eastwood and James Bond and Walt Disney, because that's how we grew up."[7] He graduated from USC in 1973.[8]

Show me ONE euromovie that is anywhere near as enjoyable as Back to the Future.

[SriK]

How do you feel about Sergio Leone's movies (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, and Once Upon a Time in America probably being the most important ones), if you've seen them? I don't know if he could be said to have made "euromovies" since he used mostly American actors for leads (most famously Clint Eastwood but also Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, and Robert de Niro) and was largely inspired by the conventions of American westerns and other Hollywood movies throughout his work, but he's an Italian director whose movies I've really enjoyed a lot since first being exposed to his stuff around a year ago (in addition to apparently being an influence on other later directors, e.g. Scorsese, Tarantino, and Zemeckis himself), even moreso than many of the best Westerns (or, in the case of Once Upon a Time in America, gangster movies) made by Americans. I haven't put too much time into others from Europe yet however (people always mention Godard, Fellini, etc. but I haven't seen anything by them yet), there seems to be a far larger amount of interesting output from Hollywood overall despite exceptions like this.

[immersedreality]

Jean-Pierre Melville's output of French gangster films such as Le Cercle Rouge and Le Samourai are probably cooler and more entertaining than any of the Hollywood equivalents I've seen.

Jule Dassin was an American director who made his masterpiece, Du rififi chez les hommes, in France.

Jacques Tati's Play Time is my favorite film comedy. The set was so large and meticulously built that it bankrupted the studio that funded it lol.

Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 is immensely charming and hilarious from beginning to end.

Personally, I think there are plenty of European films that are significantly more entertaining than Back To The Future. It is a super fun movie though, I would never deny that.

[icycalm]

I was going to answer in detail... but instead I decided to give you a much shorter, simpler reply, and let you ponder that for a while.

Your replies consist, essentially, of black and white movies.

But black and white movies aren't movies, so it's a little unfair to compare them to real movies. (Unfair to your examples, that is, not to mine.)

Think about that for a while. (Or wait until you read my essay on Set Theory...)

Like I said, I can, and probably eventually will, reply in detail. But if you dudes are STILL talking about black and white movies, you are probably not going to get much from my reply. I mean what's next, silent films? Not to mention the horrible pacing and cinematography of anything made before the '80s. And even most movies from the '90s that I've been recently rewatching are now next to unwatchable for me.

Bottom line is, if you are judging a movie exclusively on its plot (which is what you dudes are for the most part doing), you are missing, if not the whole point, then at least 70% of it. You are not sensitive enough to everything else that's going on on-screen -- or even coming out of your speakers.

But I understand that it's a reflex by now for most people. Just trot out some black and white movie and voila: everyone thinks you've got taste. But all it does to me is tell me that, in the best case scenario, you are colorblind (and in the worst, and most usual case, a poser).

[icycalm]

Here, I have a better idea. Before someone comes in and starts citing silent films, I am going to one-up him. I am going to suggest BLACK films. Not black and white -- simply BLACK. You know those radio dramas, where you get essentially the dialogue of a movie plus a narrator? This is a black movie. The screen is simply black the whole time, but the dialogue/sound track works the same.

Subhumans lol. Next up, BLACK MOVIES IN BRAILLE: EUROPEAN CINEMA STRIKES BACK.

[icycalm]

Bottom line is, THE DARK KNIGHT is a better movie than all the stuff you cited. The Dark Knight.

"BUT JACQUES TATI'S PLAY TIME IS AN INCREDIBLY INSIGHTFUL PARODY INTO MIDDLE-CLASS MENTALITY, TO THE POINT WHERE EVEN BAUDRILLARD CITES IT IN THE CONSUMER SOCIETY!!!"

Well then, in that case someone should adapt and film Zarathustra and call it a day with movies, since there will never be a more insightful one.

But it doesn't work that way fagots. Movies are art not philosophy -- they don't have the same goals. And if all you can cite in defense of European cinema are a bunch of black and white movies, all you are doing is underscoring the fact that European cinema is dead. You think you are doing it a service this way, but you are doing it a disservice. Actually, you are merely pointing out the obvious -- involuntarily of course.

Anyway, maybe I'll post more later. Film criticism is quite fucked up. Not as fucked up as game criticism, but there's a lot of decadence there too. People actually think that Inaritu and Shyamalan are not hacks, for example. Or Tarantino not a borderline-hack. Or that the Coen brothers can actually direct anything -- or even pick a decent script. And meanwhile comic book movies -- SOME OF THE BEST MOVIES EVER -- are frowned upon as meaningless and childish. I guess I might have to write a book about that too.

[immersedreality]

I thought you'd respond in a similar fashion and am very, very interested in hearing more of what you have to say about movies because it's probably the area in which your opinions confuse me the most.

From my experiences as a moviegoer however, I can honestly say some of the most fun I've ever had with watching movies are from older films. I'm not talking about in terms of the plot or "meaning" of the film or any bullshit like that. I'm talking about sitting down at the end of a film and feeling like I've just experienced a truly great work of visual art, something that was meticulously crafted and presented with incredible aesthetic consistency and vision.

I'm 100% behind the idea of advancing the art of cinema in terms of technology and scope; I want to see the limits of special effects and stunt work being constantly pushed and improved. However, I can't think of many action movies that have come out since say, Die Hard or Total Recall, that've really had me jumping for joy by the end of them having been fully immersed in the world that the film takes place in.

To me the best films are like tiny glimpses into worlds that feel infinitely larger than what is just being shown to you for the hundred or so minutes that it takes to watch the film. It's not as much about plot for me as it is about one image flowing into the next in a way that makes me unable to look away. I don't think about philosophy or social relevance or whatever when I'm judging movies, just whether or not my eyes and ears were pleased by the goings-on of the film.

I'm sure there's much in what I've just said that will strike you as stupid or decadent, but I can't deny my body the lovely pleasures of classic cinema lol. It would be awesome if you ever got around to writing full-length film reviews or articles. You've single-handedly changed my views on art and philosophy many times before, so there's no reason why you couldn't again.

[zinger]

In junior high school I used to rewind and watch Hong Kong movie fight scenes over and over again while not really paying attention to the story or other aspects of the movies (instinctively I suppose, since they were seldom very good). At the time I was a huge fan of the choreographer Yuen Woo-ping, and although he's worked on Hollywood movies since then, the fights never seemed to reach the complexity or ingeniousness of his HK work. This is probably because the American directors were more concerned about the entire movie and its overall form to be as enjoyable as possible (as opposed to Hong Kong action movies where 20% of the movies are enjoyable, while the rest is garbage (a little bit like JRPG "masterpieces")), and so the kung-fu choreography had to suffer a bit.

This is what gives rise to my ambivalence towards movies from other countries: they often contain things that I love, although the movies in their whole (their core-mechanics, so to speak) often aren't as good as Hollywood movies. I have very fond memories of Hong Kong movies, as well as many silent and black-and-white ones from Europe, but as of lately I think my standards have grown too high for me to waste much more time on them. Still, sometimes I feel like watching them just for the sake of variety though, a change of setting, style etc. -- or because of the surpise factor that a Japanese zombie ninja movie might induce -- or because I enjoy deepening my understanding of the history of cinema, and so on.

[SriK]

The Leone movies I listed weren't black and white, though two of them were pre-'80s. The reason I liked the movies didn't have much to do with plot for the most part -- the plot to Once Upon a Time in the West (after the relatively boring and badly dubbed first few minutes, which for some reason have become one of the most praised parts of the movie) is essentially a basic revenge story mixed with some stuff involving the main characters protecting a woman from assassins, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly's plot is ridiculous and goes all over the place, so neither are anything special in that regard -- but rather the cinematography, awesome scores, etc., as well as cool characters and an overall sense of scale/grandiosity. It helps that I really enjoy the Old West setting as well. Once Upon a Time in America however both has an engaging plot/characters (despite the first half hour being fairly confusing) and great cinematography/score.

I'd be interested to hear more about your opinions on pre-'80s cinematography and pacing, since generally I haven't had the same difficulties myself; the best movies I've seen from that time period (e.g. the Godfathers, Patton, Apocalypse Now, The French Connection, Goldfinger, Lawrence of Arabia, the first two Star Wars movies, etc.) still seem to flow well to me. I only encounter major issues when going back further to the black-and-white era, though there are a few exceptions.

I also second feelingbetter, I'd love to see full-length film reviews or articles from you as well.

However, I can't think of many action movies that have come out since say, Die Hard or Total Recall, that've really had me jumping for joy by the end of them having been fully immersed in the world that the film takes place in.

Have you seen Minority Report, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Dark Knight, etc.? Those are some recent action movies that generally had the same effect on me, and even the recently released Looper to a lesser degree. Also from the '90s there's still stuff like Speed and Terminator 2 that were being released after the movies you mentioned.

[immersedreality]

I've seen every film you listed and none of them really blew me away. Especially with stuff like the Lord Of The Rings movies, I find all the CG really ugly and tacky-looking and completely anti-immersive. Though I do love the grandiosity of the sets and costumes and stunts and the wonderful production values.

I also have a really hard time getting past the quick cuts and constant camera motion in most modern movies. It's like you put so much work into building these awesome sets and finding these awesome locations just let me look at them for a little while before cutting to seven different angles on Tom Cruise's face!

[SriK]

Perhaps you're more sensitive to these types of things than I am at this point, but I didn't really notice much tacky/badly integrated CGI usage in the Lord of the Rings movies, or at least nothing overly distracting (the army of the dead and Treebeard were kind of weird). To be fair though, the last time I watched the trilogy in full was around two years ago or so, and in pretty suboptimal viewing conditions at that (small laptop screen with the old SD DVDs during a power outage). I plan to rewatch them properly (on a large projector screen and with a good surround sound system) before seeing the first part of The Hobbit in December, so maybe this time around I'll notice more of the flaws you're mentioning -- as I remember it the battle sequences weren't cut overly fast and were very coherent, and there were tons of awesome shots of the sets (in addition to an amazing sense of atmosphere overall).

[zinger]

I agree about the CG in The Lord of the Rings being tacky and generally not so well-made. I'm extremely sensitive to stuff like that and the first time I watched the movie (in junior high school) I completely dismissed them just because of that. I rewatched all of them a few years ago though and while none of the effects looked any better than when I first saw them, I felt that they were almost completely overshadowed by how cool everything else in the movies is. There were basically millions of little flaws that I still took note of, but the dimensions of the movies are epic enough ("the grandiosity of the sets and costumes and stunts and the wonderful production values") for me not to care so much this last time. Also, I think my attitude has changed a little when I'm watching movies lately in that I don't actively try to point out flaws just for the sake of it, but generally just to try to "flow along" with the movies I watch and see them for what they are (if they are anything of worth at all, that is).

[icycalm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_%281974_film%29

In keeping with the tradition Polanski credits to Raymond Chandler, all of the events of the film are seen subjectively through Gittes's eyes; for example, when Gittes is knocked unconscious, the film fades to black and then fades back in when he awakens. Gittes appears in every scene of the film.

[icycalm]

Finally, a modern Greek person I can quote! It's from an interview with a theatre actress, and she's quoting someone who's probably a director or something:

http://www.tovima.gr/vimagazino/intervi ... aid=502422

«Ο Νίκος Παναγιωτόπουλος λέει ότι “το θέατρο είναι ένα ψέμα και δεύτερο ψέμα δεν χωράει”. Πρέπει να το πιστεύεις αυτό το ψέμα και να αναζητάς την αλήθεια του.

This roughly means that "theatre is a lie, and there's no space in it for a second lie". This is what the dude she's quoting said. And then she adds "You must believe this lie and search for its truth." Very well said, especially for a woman! It's a pretty decent interview overall.

[icycalm]

Eminem sayin 70 words in 10 Seconds!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJujzzjnMLk

[Vogel]

I used to rewind and watch Hong Kong movie fight scenes over and over again while not really paying attention to the story or other aspects of the movies

This is precisely what I do with Leone's movies.

The reason I liked the movies didn't have much to do with plot for the most part [...] but rather the cinematography, awesome scores, etc.

And this is the reason. Ennio Morricone's scores are actually music (or at least his western scores are), and not just sound effects like most of John Williams' Star Wars scores (or Wagner's operas).

For the benefit of those who aren't familiar with how Morricone and Leone worked together: Leone would come to Morricone with an idea of how he wanted a scene to play out, Morricone would then write the music, and then Leone would write his screenplay based on Morricone's music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_ ... West#Music

Leone had Morricone compose the score before shooting started and would play the music in the background for the actors on set.

This way the music gives depth to the cinematography which you don't see in strictly sound effect-scored movies, or in movies where the music serves merely as a somewhat fitting (or sometimes not so fitting) backdrop. The effect is that of a really good music video.

I didn't see any examples provided in other posts, so here are a few:

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)
The duel
Frank emerging

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (1966)
The Mexican standoff
The ecstasy of gold

For a Few Dollars More (1966)
The duel

Sergio Corbucci also made one of my favourite scenes with Morricone:

A Professional Gun (1968)
The arena

Tarantino frequently makes use of Morricone's scores, but I've never seen him write screenplay like this.

[SriK]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_ge ... art_games/

What should be taken away from this is that, ultimately, the overall level of craftsmanship, and thus our pleasure in it, never really decreases — on the contrary, it is plainly obvious that it continually increases — what decreases is the percentage of craftsmanship PER PERSON (artist/scientist/engineer) involved. Consequently, our gratitude towards the makers of a work is just as great as ever, if not greater, it's only that, as the arts advance, we are obliged to DIVIDE it between an EVER-INCREASING number of individuals. And this is one of the things that can be found at the bottom of all pseudo-intellectual complaints against advanced artforms: that they thwart our natural (and naturally idiotic) propensity to direct all of our gratitude toward a single artist, to worship a single person like a sort of artistic god or demi-god.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_myth_of_independence/

To create a world alone, on the other hand, truly independently — who could be capable of such a feat? Certainly only a god — and not even any of those our ancestors spoke to us of...

As demonstrated by Iron Man 3's credits, which I just sat through:

Names and logos practically filling up the entire damn screen, for ten full minutes -- some modern movies and especially games have similarly long credits, of course, but there's no incentive there to actually wait through them, and if I'm not watching in an actual movie theater I can just fast-forward through if I know there is something afterwards (similarly most games have nothing interesting after their credits, or skippable credits, etc. -- I don't think I've ever watched a modern game's credits in full). I was aware of the size and scope of this stuff beforehand of course, but seeing all of it scroll down your screen for minutes on end still really helps put things in perspective, and it makes those statements above seem so completely obvious that I can't even see how anyone could deny them. I never thought of it this way before now (despite watching almost all of Marvel's superhero movies to this point), but in a sense it's actually quite great that Marvel has been encouraging viewers to sit through their movies' entire credits for those extra little funny scenes they include at the end. A few more years' worth of that with four or so major superhero films each might help some people get it through their heads the magnitude of effort and number of people needed to create even a decent modern movie, let alone a truly great cutting-edge game (or in other words, that more people correlates with better, not less). And this is only going to increase in the future for both artforms (well, until movies die and games completely take over, anyway).

It's a testament to the quality of this site how easily and naturally applicable its theories are to even these incredibly small facets of works of art that I come across, as opposed to "meaning" theory which is applicable to practically no art, let alone giving direction on how to improve anything (well, more accurately, it gives an entirely wrong direction). I guess that's what happens when you make rigorous inferences from a large sample space rather than trying to craft your entire view of art around that one time you cried after watching The Fountain.

Actually, relating to that last sentence, a train of thought that occurred to me a little while ago, and which hadn't seemed to come up yet in this thread (I haven't ordered the full Genealogy yet so apologies if it does in there, I promise I will soon): would it be correct to say that, in addition to what's mentioned here, another reason some people put so much emphasis on crying in art is that they're mistaking a consequence of immersion for something inherently valuable in and of itself? "Truly great movies make you cry", etc. -- but if you're a decently intelligent and unpretentious viewer (which btw excludes The Fountain from being able to make you cry, lol) then you're only crying at movies that are immersive in the first place, films that draw you in deeply enough to their characters and world that they're able to tap into your emotions in that way (and many other ways). At least it seems true enough for me; I can't recall the last time I've actually cried at a movie (or any work of art, really), but several have made me come close (e.g. The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather: Part II's final scenes, Blow Out's ending, Blade Runner's tears-in-rain speech -- and recently Almost Famous, but out of joy/laughter), and all of them were five-star movies for me in other aspects as well. So some people are just intelligent enough to recognize that they have strong "emotional" reactions to certain works, but rather than introspecting further and discovering the higher reasons behind that they focus on just the crying/melancholy and "conclude" it's something valuable by itself (while also devaluing all other kinds of strong emotional reactions, like laughter or exhilaration or tension/fear, due to the reasons mentioned in the linked posts), and then they try and apply this conclusion to videogames ("analyzing" them almost solely through prominent aspects of the other works that did make them cry -- character, plot, writing, etc.), predictably ending up getting nowhere?

[icycalm]

When you read my essay on the emotions everything will become so clear you'll feel like shouting it from the rooftops. It's very easy to understand, once you have read it, but the level of understanding of art, physics and psychology required to create this essay is almost superhuman. No one else but me can do it. It opens with a comment from Freud. This single comment, barely two or three lines long, is the key to the answer -- all the rest of what I write is built on it. So I guess someone could conceivably sit down between now and Volume II's publication, read all of Freud and try to find it, and then beat me to the punch with their own essay. In the long run, my essay would overshadow theirs anyway, because no one else can match the analysis I will provide, but if someone has the time and the inclination, they could give it a shot at finding the answer on their own. Personally, I don't like Freud, so reading all of him from start to finish is something I could never do. I thus count myself very fortunate on encountering that quote on the wall of a cafe in Florence while having breakfast one day in the winter of 2008-2009. I had already worked out the answer before, of course, but that quote was an incredibly powerful way of summarizing everything and putting it in perspective to the point where you'd really have to be retarded to deny the truth of what I am claiming. So when the time came for me to write the essay, I stuck it on the top.

[icycalm]

But to answer your question, ask yourself: what makes us cry? Once you have the answer, try to find which artform is better at causing that thing which makes us cry. It's all really very simple. These are the key questions: all the rest is chatter.

[zinger]

In junior high school I used to rewind and watch Hong Kong movie fight scenes over and over again while not really paying attention to the story or other aspects of the movies (instinctively I suppose, since they were seldom very good). At the time I was a huge fan of the choreographer Yuen Woo-ping, and although he's worked on Hollywood movies since then, the fights never seemed to reach the complexity or ingeniousness of his HK work. This is probably because the American directors were more concerned about the entire movie and its overall form to be as enjoyable as possible (as opposed to Hong Kong action movies where 20% of the movies are enjoyable, while the rest is garbage (a little bit like JRPG "masterpieces")), and so the kung-fu choreography had to suffer a bit.

Just watched an episode of The story of film where Yuen Woo-ping himself confirms this, saying that he generally had much more freedom while making movies in China, while he had to follow a script written beforehand when directing the fighting scenes for The Matrix.

[icycalm]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/a_brief_h ... cutscenes/

For the development process of these archaic cutscenes was by no means as trivial a feat as it would be for us today. It revolved around something called "the video-camera", a machine capable of an early form of video generation used by primitive peoples before computers gave men the power of creating any cutscene they could think of from the comfort of their desks just by hitting a few buttons.

Lucasfilm wants to show you a two hour cut scene
http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/ ... -cut-scene

"OVER THE NEXT DECADE video game engines will be used in film-making, with the two disciplines combining to eliminate the movie post-production process."

[icycalm]

http://www.on-verge.org/essays/review-o ... the-world/

So for me, post-relational art is that contemporary art that builds upon the legacy of relational aesthetics, but where off-line non-relational digital processes take precedence over traditional relational aesthetic concerns. So this is art now, more often than not, connected to digital art production where the computer code sets the conceptual rules for a physical production. I have identified this post-convergent and post-relational trend in 1999 as one of viractuality. [23][24]

[El Chaos]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/hollyw ... 0-6420773/

Film Producer Avi Arad (Spider-Man, X-Men)

"Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain is a stunning presentation. The trailer is full of symbolism and philosophy that we come to expect from Mr. Kojima. Although cleverly disguising the story and therefore making the trailer enticing, Mr. Kojima makes sure to include enough visuals to make us comfortable that we are in for a new Metal Gear experience. For me, the sight of the Diamond Dogs and Snake putting the ashes on his face with multiple urns make me believe that a lot of history is going to be dealt with. If one listens carefully to the amazing song, Nuclear by Mike Oldfield, it is fantastic story telling that gives us enough of a window to know we are about to embark on another emotional masterpiece by Mr. Kojima. Kiefer Sutherland as the voice of Snake is just fantastic while raising the drama, and makes us long to play the game."

Director Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive, Only God Forgives)

"Watching the trailers for MGSV makes you wonder if the spirits of Dostoyevsky, Stanley Kubrick, and Caravaggio entered Hideo Kojima's body because, using the art of gaming as his canvas, he boldly goes where no one has gone before.

The trailers for Metal Gear Solid V, prove once again that Hideo Kojima is a master at portraying a wider and more complex view of human nature combined with breathtaking action sequences. A daring and bold move from one of the founders of the future of technology. With Metal Gear Solid V, Hideo Kojima has created the perfect marriage of cinematic storytelling and cutting edge gaming technology. For me, it all culminates into one word: Genius."

Director Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Pacific Rim)

"Kojima-San remains a massive inspiration for me and METAL GEAR continues to deliver the edgy, vital, jaw-dropping world and feel that we have come to expect but it pushes the envelope every single time. It is a window into the future of the medium and its breathless narrative and artistic expansion. Amazing!"

Director Park Chan-wook (Old Boy, Stoker)

"I have always been thinking that I want to see a film directed by Mr. Kojima, but after seeing the latest trailers for Metal Gear Solid V, I realised I was wrong. He has actually been making films in his own way already. Metal Gear Solid games are already films, the films of the future."

Director Shinya Tsukamoto (Tetsuo: The Iron Man, Vital, Nightmare Detective)

"Intense, crazy, deep Kojima world. By the time you finish this game, you should be changed into a completely new person."

Actor Norman Reedus (The Walking Dead, The Boondock Saints)

"Wow! That is AMAZING! So beautiful … So well done. You guys created such an incredible piece of art."

[icycalm]

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/9-10 ... st-1024285

Cars are not works of art. They are vehicles. I have written an entire book on what art is. Can't link it here because too much vulgarity in it, but I'll give you the definition: "the craft of illusion". Cars are not illusory, ergo not art.

The only reason some older stuff costs more than newer stuff is the economics of collection/scarcity, i.e. something that has almost nothing to do with quality.

As for the rest of your comments: you are preaching to the choir here. I have reviews on my site of games from the '80s. I am the only person in the world to have written a review of Spacewar (1962).

None of this changes the fact that the very point of progress is to overcome the old to such a degree, that the new will obliterate it. And in the best of cases, it does. In the rest of the cases, you keep hammering at it until it does.

Whoever prefers a 1960 Ferrari to a 2014 one is not a true car lover (he is an old fart who's going the way of the dodo together with his precious car). And the same is true of all the other crafts.