Mr Montmorency said:
Comedy does not mean funny in the dramatic sense. It means a happy ending.
And Jumper is anything but interesting.
Poll: What is the Big Deal With Bloody Shakespeare?!?!
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Comedy does not mean funny in the dramatic sense. It means a happy ending.
And Jumper is anything but interesting.
On the topic of Shakespeare: While he might be of debatable relevance in this modern age, what he accomplished at the time was revolutionary. From a historical standpoint, he revolutionized the English Language and popularized it. So, gotta respect him for that..and for creating both Hamlet and Macbeth.
Is that Anthony Ainley as the master i see in your display picture? Ahh memories....I'm sad now, because i remember he isn't alive anymore.CJ1145 said:
While his contributions to the English language are amazing, I don't actually like his plays or literature.
Sorry, but I don't have to automatically like the original architect's work just because it was made by the original architect.
Sorry, but I don't have to automatically like the original architect's work just because it was made by the original architect.
I think it boils down to: Just because you can't understand the way he speaks, doesn't make the plays bad. They were all very good stories, that entertained masses when there was no such thing as television, radio, or anything of the sort.
Think about it. He put on plays for hundreds of thousands of people, at once, without the use of microphones or speakers, no high-tech lighting, no nothing except for pre-revolution technology. He was one of a few play-writers who could entertain these people, and thus his works are considered classics, and are widely accepted as entertaining.
And also, to go with your argument on this: Just because they're considered classics doesn't mean everyone likes them. If you don't like his stuff, then read it, be done with it, and never pick up one of his plays again.
Think about it. He put on plays for hundreds of thousands of people, at once, without the use of microphones or speakers, no high-tech lighting, no nothing except for pre-revolution technology. He was one of a few play-writers who could entertain these people, and thus his works are considered classics, and are widely accepted as entertaining.
And also, to go with your argument on this: Just because they're considered classics doesn't mean everyone likes them. If you don't like his stuff, then read it, be done with it, and never pick up one of his plays again.
I detested Much Ado About Nothing. I would like to un-write Beatrice, Benedict and everyone else.
But I liked Romeo & Juliet, and anything else I've read by him (I feel bad for not remembering). Which granted isn't much.
I do find him funny actually, not in a "I must laugh for it to be funny" way however.
But I liked Romeo & Juliet, and anything else I've read by him (I feel bad for not remembering). Which granted isn't much.
I do find him funny actually, not in a "I must laugh for it to be funny" way however.
This is by far the worst thread I've ever seen on The Escapist. Read a book you failure(s).
The man pretty much invented 1/3rd of modern English, revolutionized the very IDEA of story-telling in the English language from the ground up, and changed the world's perceptions about how writing works.
Yeah, I don't expect everyone to get a lot of enjoyment out of his works due to the archaic language and the writing method - not everyone can take the time to study his works (which is really the only way to understand exactly how brilliant they actually are), but you at least have to recognize how awesome the basic narratives are.
Two young forbidden lovers end a centuries long family war with their suicides? Awesome.
A man driven mad by lust for power kills pretty much everyone in the country before getting beheaded? Awesome.
The most gruesome and hardcore revenge story ever told, in which the father to a daughter who was raped and mutilated kills his enemy's two sons and cooks them in a pie that he then force feeds to their mother? FUCKING BRUTAL.
There is a reason these stories have been remade hundreds of times in every possible story-telling medium since they were first written as plays. THEY ARE FUCKING AWESOME.
The man pretty much invented 1/3rd of modern English, revolutionized the very IDEA of story-telling in the English language from the ground up, and changed the world's perceptions about how writing works.
Yeah, I don't expect everyone to get a lot of enjoyment out of his works due to the archaic language and the writing method - not everyone can take the time to study his works (which is really the only way to understand exactly how brilliant they actually are), but you at least have to recognize how awesome the basic narratives are.
Two young forbidden lovers end a centuries long family war with their suicides? Awesome.
A man driven mad by lust for power kills pretty much everyone in the country before getting beheaded? Awesome.
The most gruesome and hardcore revenge story ever told, in which the father to a daughter who was raped and mutilated kills his enemy's two sons and cooks them in a pie that he then force feeds to their mother? FUCKING BRUTAL.
There is a reason these stories have been remade hundreds of times in every possible story-telling medium since they were first written as plays. THEY ARE FUCKING AWESOME.
In Jr. High, I read Shakespeare & Poe in my free time. I also enjoy 18th & 19th century children's liturature, & goddamn if those kids didn't have a higher & more complex vocalulary back then than we do now. These were all things I had to read with a dictionary at hand.
This.zen5887 said:
Shakespeare is actually quite interesting, if you can get yourself into the mindset of the time of course. Once you do that, his plays make much more sense, and actually have political satire, sexual innuendo, and violence. Who doesn't love all that?
Macbeth and Hamlet I enjoyed because they had a lot of dark themes interspersed with funny little expositions of characters before they take the plunge into their darkened fates. He refined a lot of story blueprints (tropes), which is impressive. Would I ever read him for fun? Hell no, the context that is translated through the culture of the period is a lot to overcome until you become familiar with it. You can read the book, but what you believe to understand is only really half of what is truly there. Can be satisfying if one has the dedication.
So you had one class when you were 15 and studied one play by some horrible, underpaid, jaded high school teacher in a class that you had no choice but to attend and based on that experience you've decided that all of Shakespeare's works are unworthy of attention?Dr. Awesome Face said:
Go watch Kurosawa's Throne of Blood. That shit is awesome and shows how timeless Shakespeare's works are.
Also 10 Things I Hate About You, She's The Man, Titus (Titus if fucking awesome), or shit go watch The Lion King again.
I understand that as a teenager Shakespeare is a boring topic, but that's mostly due to how its taught. If you spent the entire class explaining all the dick jokes, examining the extreme violence, or even just viewing the plays as they were meant to be seen (hint: they were never meant to be read and the language was supposed to be easy enough for even the simpletons of the time to understand), kids today may have a different opinion.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what CJ said. I will be graduating this fall with a four year degree in English Rhetoric and Writing. I would recommend taking some advanced writing, English, and literature classes before you tell someone that they have a flawed grasp of the language. The main reason there is nothing wrong with what CJ said is that his writing is conversational. There is nothing wrong with conversational language, especially on the Internet in a forum. The only problems conversational writing can have are misspellings and grammatical issues, which in CJ's reply, there are none.CuddlyCombine said:
On the topic at hand, the tread actually should have ended with CJ's response. The reason being that the OP is obviously a troll, because if he actually cared, he would have come back to respond to what people have been saying. Though it could be that he didn't get the response he was looking for and found out that he was wrong and should just keep his flawed opinion to himself.
You said it best!CJ1145 said:
Also great profile picture, I think I actually have the episode, on DVD, from which the pic occurs.
I don't think that all of his works are unworthy of attention. Hell I've also read Macbeth and Hamlet (which I have also seen a performance of). And they were all right, so was Merchant of Venice for the most part. I just don't have the motivation to go find more and read them as well. I was exaggerating the Shakespeare can burn in hell thing because it was one of the options and as I mentioned I seriously hated the ending of Merchant of Venice.AcacianLeaves said:
As for the language, English is virtually a completely different language now to what it was back then, I doubt that there is many at all who still learn how to understand that version of English.
At the end of the day I just don't really have the motivation to go out and see more or read more, because like a lot of things I don't really care.
Shakespeare's plays dwell on universal themes that transcend time and literature. It is because he is the best of his time that he is still used.
Hell, the Australian political coup recently was very similar to that of the betrayal in Caesar.
(metaphorically, not literally.)
Though, to me, he is boring as crap, he does have good works that make him respectable by all who can appreciate good work.
Hell, the Australian political coup recently was very similar to that of the betrayal in Caesar.
(metaphorically, not literally.)
Though, to me, he is boring as crap, he does have good works that make him respectable by all who can appreciate good work.
Shakespeare's work really comes alive on the stage. When you're forced to read it quietly in middle school with the onus that you'd better appreciate its greatness (you little prat), you spend half your time trying to decipher four hundred year old language and the other half working out the plot (and any time left over seething in resentment at being forced to work so hard with the promise you'll be thought an idiot for failing to do so). At the least, it should be read aloud with a group of people. It was never meant to be taken as "literature"; it's the popular culture of its time, and it's survived so long because it was head and shoulders above most of what was being staged. But it was still pop culture.
Some- much- of Shakespeare's work really is very good. The turns of phrase and the rich characters (not to mention any number of words and phrases that were created out of whole cloth and burned permanently into our culture (neither a borrower nor a lender be, brevity is the soul of wit, discretion is the better part of valor, etc.)) attest to this. He also wrote some works that are entirely awful, as anyone who has actually sat through a production of the rarely staged "Two Noble Kinsmen" can attest.
But on the whole, I really enjoy Shakespeare, and I truly wonder if anything that's come out of this decade or even this century shall survive as long, as well regarded.
Some- much- of Shakespeare's work really is very good. The turns of phrase and the rich characters (not to mention any number of words and phrases that were created out of whole cloth and burned permanently into our culture (neither a borrower nor a lender be, brevity is the soul of wit, discretion is the better part of valor, etc.)) attest to this. He also wrote some works that are entirely awful, as anyone who has actually sat through a production of the rarely staged "Two Noble Kinsmen" can attest.
But on the whole, I really enjoy Shakespeare, and I truly wonder if anything that's come out of this decade or even this century shall survive as long, as well regarded.
