My sister and brother-in-law are looking at getting into surround sound and also just need more HDMI inputs. The TV I gave them (one of the bulky 32" Sony CRT HDTVs) only has one DVI-HDCP input, so right now they have the PS3 hooked up to it. Rather than just get an HDMI switch, they want to take the opportunity to get a new receiver. They're looking at this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882115197What would your recommendations be in that price range? Because I'm a bit more extreme (stupid?), receivers in that range are rarely on my radar. Does that seem like it would be fine, or is there something more compelling out there? I'd appreciate the input, and I'm sure they would, too.
I'm not sure what they're going to do about speakers. I mean, he has some, but I think they're just some small JBLs. They don't have much money to blow, so I may buy some for them. We'll see.
Charles, my suggestion in the $400 price range would be the Onkyo 706 factory refurb from
Accessories4less. That Yamaha would certainly be fine as an amplifier, but I'd prefer the 706 features, particularly Audyssey MultEQ.
Thanks, John. That does seem like a good deal. I think they would get a lot out of Dynamic EQ since they live in an apartment and wouldn't want to be blasting their system. It's nice to know they can get a receiver in their price range that has it.
Anyone have an opinion on the Denon AVR-1910? That might be stretching their budget, but my brother-in-law isn't too comfortable with the idea of a refurb.
My view, which you might suggest to him, is that a unit rechecked by the factory is even more likely to be trouble-free than a brand-new one.
I did try telling them that, but he still seems uneasy.
I hate to say this, because what John is saying actually makes a lot of sense logically speaking... however in practice I've bought three refurb items, and have had problems with all three.
The 1st item was a mini DV video recorder I bought in the late 90's/early 2000's... I purchased it online for $500 bucks refurbished, it was a $2000 dollar video camera new, so I couldn't pass up $1500 in savings! It worked great for about 9 months and then it just up & quit one day. It only came with a 3 month warrantee, and nobody locally could work on the thing. So anyway, that $500 went up in smoke.
The 2nd item was a full screen, double din, Kenwood car stereo DVD/CD player. I got it for a cool $750, and it too cost around $2000 brand new!!! A little over a year after I bought it the DVD/CD player stopped working. Same story with the warrantee/shops willing to work on it. So now I have an excellent $750 dollar radio in my car.
And lastly when my Maxtor R.A.I.D. Memory back-up storage unit went out last summer we had to get a recovery team to get our pictures off of the disks, which cost us $1800 clams. Then as a replacement they ended up sending us a refurbished unit to back our files up on. We didn't ask for a refurb unit, nor did I ok them to send us a refurbished unit, they just sent it to me anyway. So it lasted about 4 months, then at the end of December it completely crapped out on us. And when I say completely I mean my computer can't even see it as an external drive anymore, it's completely fucked!!! Thank God we had all our pictures backed up on yet another hard drive (we learned from that first debacle), so we didn't have to pay for another recovery. But that hard drive is completely gone.
So that's 3 for 3 we struck out on. I'm sure there are those with the exact opposite results when buying refurb equipment without an problems out of it what-so-ever. And if that's you, then more power to ya, I'm happy for you. But my experience with refurbished merchandise hasn't been good up to this date and time.
And although you can save TONS of money with refurb stuff, I won't spend my money on anything that isn't brand new and in the original box anymore. I've simply been burned too many times. I hate to have a negative attitude about something like that, but we can't always chose the hand we're dealt in life....
And no I'm not preaching to anyone else about what they should or should not do, I'm simply stating my own opinion about refurbished stuff.
Your problem with refurbs sounds like my problems with Sears. Some people don't have any problems with them. But (to make a long story short) I bought a lawn mower, oven, garage door opener, clothes, and some tool. And that's all I bought in that 4 year period. And all 5 of them were faulty products that quit working, or were very inferrior in some way. I'll never buy from Sears again.
I would generally avoid the current model year of Yamaha AVRs. The previous year of models were higher quality. The only AVRs that seem to be decent this year are the Denons.
My view, which you might suggest to him, is that a unit rechecked by the factory is even more likely to be trouble-free than a brand-new one.
My brother-in-law wasn't quite that lucky. He got sent a bad unit. It had a bad rear channel. If you do go this route make certain you keep all the original packing.
He got a full refill minus the cost of packaging as he didn't keep the original box.
It took two weeks to get a new unit sent to him.
Look at the Onkyo's at Amazon. New price is comparable to the refirbs. I'd stick to the XX07 line. More up to date HDMI processing than the 06 line. I have a 507 in my work break room. It's a basic, no frills simple AVR. It's been working fine for a hub for VHS / DVD / BR.
I have a refurb Onkyo. It is awesome, arrived like new and has been trouble-free.
My H/K receiver is a refurb, as is my Yamaha DVD changer. I like the H/K better, but I haven't seen any defects in either.
Look at the Onkyo's at Amazon. New price is comparable to the refirbs. I'd stick to the XX07 line. More up to date HDMI processing than the 06 line.
Yes. The Onkyo 607 is now $435.81 at Amazon with free shipping. I don't have one, but it sounds like a very fine receiver.
I would generally avoid the current model year of Yamaha AVRs. The previous year of models were higher quality.
That sounds like the '19 series Pioneers. I really like my 1018, but wouldn't touch the 1019.
I have to say the '07 Onkyos do look nice across the board. Just pick the features you really need, and stop there.
Unfortunately, Dynamic Volume doesn't appear to be a feature before this year (except for upgraded 3808s). Please correct me if I'm wrong...
I meant the Onkyo model numbers which end in 07, which are the 2010 models.
Ah. That makes more sense.
I would generally avoid the current model year of Yamaha AVRs. The previous year of models were higher quality.
What aspect of the current Yamahas shows this stumble in quality? Just curious.
Thanks for the comments, guys. It looks like Onkyo and Denon are the ones to choose from. When I suggested the Denon AVR-1910, my brother-in-law didn't really want to pay even $500 and asked if the 1610 would work. 75 wpc versus 90 wpc. I'm sure it would work, but I still hate to recommend receivers with amps that aren't rated closer to 100 wpc. Right now it would probably between the Denon AVR-1610 and the Onkyo TX-SR607. The Denon has Audyssey MultEQ while the Onkyo has only 2EQ. The Onkyo is a little more expensive, but is rated at 90 wpc instead of 75. I thought the Denons had Anchor Bay upscaling across their product line, but I guess that starts with the 1910. I still think I'd recommend the Denon over the Onkyo.
I doubt the differences in wpc will even be noticed. And by the way, don't dismiss JBL speakers too quickly. I just replaced Axiom speakers for JBL EC25 center, JBL 4310 side surrounds, JBL E10 back surrounds, and, while Axiom are better, JBL were pretty good, too.
How loud do they listen? My Harman/Kardon is only 75 WPC. Works for me.
They really don't listen too loudly. My sister is always conscious of neighbors. Perhaps the 1610 is the way to go.
I found I listen at ~65 dB, so that might give you some level of comparison. I'm very sure that it can go much louder.
I can't stand the green lighting the Onkyo's use, for that reason alone I say go for one of the Denons.
I've ordered a B-Stock Denon from DakMart.com They carry a Denon 1 year warranty and I got "last years model" 1709 for less than half price. Well, half of the suggested retail price on Denon's site.
I don't expect it to arrive for a few days so I can't comment just yet. We'll see how it goes.
snazzed
...but I still hate to recommend receivers with amps that aren't rated closer to 100 wpc.
If Denon rates the 1910 at 90 wpc, then it probably pushes 100 with ease. I myself would have a hard time recommending a reciever that only supplied a 75 wpc amp section, but that's based specifically on my tastes. Sure they may usually listen to it at moderate levels, but one day when your brother in law has the house all to himself, and really want's to jam out... he'll run into a roadblock.
Personally speaking my Denon that's rated at 125 wpc run my M80's infinitely better than the Sherwood rated at 100 wpc could ever hope to. I can only imagine how they would sound with only three quarters of that power feeding them. But here again, we're not talking about M80's, and they don't have as much room to fill, and I am admittedly not an 'easy listener'... so it's your call.
I would generally avoid the current model year of Yamaha AVRs. The previous year of models were higher quality.
What aspect of the current Yamahas shows this stumble in quality? Just curious.
I find their lack of something as basic as proper binding posts on their mid-range models to be appalling. If they feel it necessary to swap them for spring connectors in order to cut costs then I won't buy.
I see this as similar to the telephone wire that is included with most HTIB. If they really wanted them to sound good, they would spend the extra couple of $$ to include reasonably sized wires.
I don't care how good Onkyos sound since they tend to run almost red hot. That alone screams of improper engineering IMHO. Honestly, I think all the brands have their flaws.
I am a newbie to this forum, and the general topic of quality sound reproduction, but here is my situation. I have been using:
Onkyo TX-SR574 receiver,
CS Newton M60 front channel (sometimes swapped for Polk RTi4's), CS Newton MC500 center
CS The Surround II's surround channel (they came with the house)
CS BassCube 10S sub
I ran across the Axiom products in my search for an upgrade to this system, and am looking at the Epic 80-500 set for the speaker upgrade. I don't believe the SR574 will power that set of speakers (4 ohm), and even if it could power them, it would not be adequate to meet my goals. I have been looking to upgrade the 'data acquisition and processing" side of the system for some time in any case. BTW, my goal is to achieve the most impressive (BIG judgement call there I realize, but for me it means true, but enveloping) sound that my budget can afford. That budget is somewhat dependent upon what I can achieve at each price point, but realistically (considering the wf) will not go above 8 or 10K, and I would like to keep it under 6. Accurate audio reproduction is my main goal, but I do need to manage the HDMI signals, to some degree, and I very much prefer to have a network capable device to which I can stream digital music, since I have converted all my CD's to lossless digital files, and am seeking to expand that with SuperCD (think that is the term) files.
In my searching for information and education, these Axiom forums appear to one of the more objective sources, thus this post. I ran across a close-out deal on an Onkyo TX-NR906 ($1250) and decided it was worth giving a try. I have had it hooked up for several days and am still trying to figure out whether it was the best use of $1300 toward my goals. I have looked at the Denon's, not spent much time on the Yamahas, and compared the specs on the 906 to the XX07 series. I have also looked at separates, but not so much as the AVR's. So my first question is whether the 906 going to 'play well' with the Epic 80-500 (or -600) set, and is that the best return on my dollars. I am hoping that some of you have had a chance to do an apples-to-apples blind test on the 906 in comparison to some of the likely options.
Mitch, welcome. It's unlikely that you'll find someone who's done the blind tests with the 906 that you mention, but that shouldn't really be necessary in arriving at a decision. The M80s are slightly above average in sensitivity and therefore need a bit less power than many other speakers. The 906 has a quite powerful amplifier and can drive the M80s to beyond a safe listening level except where the listening position would be exceptionally distant from the speakers. The 906 and the Epic 80-500 should allow you to enjoy the sound that you're looking for.
JohnK, thank you for that advice. And I expected the 906 to be able to deliver that volume of sound. It is not the case, and I am suspicious that something is not right with the receiver. But that is something I will take up with Onkyo tomorrow.
With your budge, I would think Denon's 4810 (or 4310's) is well within reach. I have the Epic80/500 package with Denon 3808. I love it. But the HEIGHT (wide's I can't do for ergonomic reasons) capabilities of the 4(3/8)10 series sounds very intriguing!
Do take a close look at Denon.
For those interested, I just happened across a new
review of the Denon 4810ci. The review is very positive and links to some info on height and width channels.
Cheers,
What would your recommendations be in that price range?
Pioneer Elite VSX-23TXH, before I bought my yamaha I was seriously thinking the pioneer. I could have bought one from an authorized dealer in california for $540. You have to be careful with some brands and the authorized dealer thing. Its worth a look if they didnt already buy
The only reason I didnt go with a n Onkyo 906 because people said they run super hot, like you cant put your hand on it.
I can’t speak to the Onkyo 906 specifically but I’ve run my Onkyo 3007 over 2 hours playing Goa Trance (130+ beat/minute bass) on my M80s at 100dB and it never got so hot I couldn’t hold my hand on it. As far as I can tell it doesn’t get any hotter than my Denon 2807 did FWIW.
Except to briefly listen that there was not any distortion I either spent the time outside or wearing double hearing protection when inside checking how hot the Onkyo was getting. Also learned I don’t really need outdoor speakers.
Neither do your neigbours
I can’t speak to the Onkyo 906 specifically but I’ve run my Onkyo 3007 over 2 hours playing Goa Trance (130+ beat/minute bass) on my M80s at 100dB...
Looks like Grunt likes to get his "party" on! I wouldn't expect less from someone with a Vernon Pinkley avatar.
I bet Lee Marvin liked his Goa Trance loud and bumping as well...
Wow... it looks like my...
My 100th post on the Axiom forum!!! Woo hoo!!!
pmbuko, you better watch out, yo...
Lol, apparently, I cannot count correctly...
But at least I busted my "100" cherry! Now where can I pick up my complimentary cocktail and Axiom decoder ring?
Looks like Grunt likes to get his "party" on! I wouldn't expect less from someone with a Vernon Pinkley avatar.
I bet Lee Marvin liked his Goa Trance loud and bumping as well...
Close but no cigar.
It’s Oddball (“We have a loudspeaker here [on his tank], and when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.”) from “Kelly’s Heroes” (my favorite war movie of all time) but he prefers the spacey ambient stuff we’re listening to now.
Damn! I couldn't decide if your avater was from Kelly’s Heroes or The Dirty Dozen. I'm really on a roll tonight.
You have fine taste in movies either way.
With a few exceptions, I pretty much think films from the 60's and 70's kick major ass over the current crop of remakes, sequels and cgi infested video game vampire movies for 'tweens.
That was back when men were men and women were filmed full frontal without too much fake boob-age or shaved muffs. Natural vixens rule...
Man I really miss Lee Marvin, Steve McQueen and Warren Oates.
Yeah I do miss when leading men were men and not all “metro” or “emo” (emo chicks are hot though
).
And the women: Raquel Welch, Daliah Lavi, Linda Harrison . . . .
Off the top of my head the only remake I’ve seen from that time that I’ve really liked was “3 Musketeers”
Hmmm. I must be oversensitized because I find most of the older movies (yahn) mostly boring. But there are a few...
Hmmm. I must be oversensitized because I find most of the older movies (yahn) mostly boring. But there are a few...
Oh yes, there are quite a few!
It's more like desensitized actually. Especially American audiences. Started happening in the late 70's. Spectacle over quality.
"Me like things blow up. Me like pithy, stupid catchphrases (make my day, I'm too old for this shit, etc.). Me like fast MTV editing that makes things look like they are "happening". Me like.... Look!!! Something shiny over there!!!"
Short attention spans and plot lines that spell it all out for you. No ambiguous endings. Lots of special effects! Woo hoo!
That's why "showbiz" has devolved into "reality" shows and their "stars". Talentless, ugly humans and their shallow, vacuous pursuits. Lots of celebrities, not too many actors.
You see the results of the dumb-ing down of American audiences on Netflix reviews. Someone accidentally gets an artistic film, like say a Fellini film, and decides to review it: "This thing sucked! The first twenty minutes were so slow I fast forwarded through it. And it was in Italian! Why can't they make it in "American"? The chick was hot though!" Sigh. I wish they would just go and play Halo and leave film appreciation to the adults.
Two of my favorite films from the 70's still hold up quite well and blow most new stuff out of the water. 'Clockwork Orange' and 'Eraserhead'. Two recent films that are very much in the same vein of great 70's film making that I would recommend are: 'No Country For Old Men' and 'There Will Be Blood'. Amazing films and great art too. See, that didn't hurt at all.
In fact, PT Anderson is probably the best American director of his (mine) generation. I really believe he is our next Scorcese/Kubrick.
Also check out the works of Darren Aronofsky. These guys are old school and modern at the same time and are keeping the flame of artistic film making alive and well in these dark times of "technological wow" movies without story, acting or any artistic nonsense getting in the way of the explosions/car crashes/shiny cgi stuff. Hey the movie sucks, but did you hear the sub bass?
Speaking of car chases, just compare say, 'The Fast And The Furious' car chases to the one in 'Bullitt' (1968). The one in 'Bullitt' is real. The one(s) in F&F is done using the lamest, dated computer technology and sucks balls compared to the real thing. But hey, that sh*tty hip-hop soundtrack sounds bitching in DTS!
Old movies rule. You can throw all the wiz-bang techno advances and effects into a modern film but you will still never even come close to making a great "movie" like Hitchcock did. You need more than slick technology to make a film imho. You need story, acting and a directors sure hand. Technology serves that, not the other way around.
Hitchcock was a genius. No one like him.
Good EEE...ve...ning.
There were a lot of crappy movies before the current generation. For each of the good ones you remember, there were ten that did nothing to challenge or entertain the viewer. And I'll take entertaining over challenging anytime. Most of the times when people try to be artistic it just comes across as pretentious and annoying. It's just as hard to make an entertaining movie that works as it is to make a thinking man's movie that works. If you can pull off both at the same time, then, well, you're a miracle worker. PT Anderson and Darren Aronofsky fall short of that for me, but I don't really have anyone else to offer up in their place. Also, count me in the group of people who don't appreciate Hitchcock. Blame my short attention span, but I've never been absorbed into one of his movies.
Yeah Charles I’m not a Hitchcock fan, movies or TV either. I was more of a Rod Serling person. Also looks like my liking of older movies is different from audiosavant. I liked it when the good-guys were good and the bad-guys were bad and the good-guys killed the bad-guys w/o any moral ambiguity. Not that I don’t mind a complex story but it’s just, as you point out Charles, to often they come across as pretentious.
The other thing I like about older movies, often very older, is the dialogue and that they were more character driven. Not that I don’t mind a good action movie but I’ve seen enough car chases to know how they go. “G-Force” is the only recent movie with a car chase I liked because it was a little different. This really shows up in the anime I prefer which have less action and more character interaction like in “Death Note.” Now there’s a show that puts Hitchcock to shame IMO.
"To...nights stawry, is about a man with a shawt attention shpan"
Don't get wrong guys, I LOVE modern films. And ones that just seek to entertain also. Nothing wrong with mindless fun, but...
Music and film are things I care deeply about. And as an art form, film has
everything that I love. Visuals, sound design, music, lighting, etc., so it's somewhat sacred to me. I just enjoy craft and quality. Whether it's a popular film or a mainstream blockbuster. Or conversely, a Top Ten pop song or a symphony. Either way, they should be of high quality and not insult your intelligence.
And films that are pretentious and "artsy" for their own sake are just as annoying to me as something that is utter garbage like Transformers (you can actually feel your IQ going down while watching Michael Bay movies). Time is precious, why waste it on mediocre crap?
I know people sometimes say about critics: "Movie/music reviews are just opinions and are no more valid than my own." Uh, unless you know the medium, no. They are informed opinions by (if they are a legitimate critic) people who know an artist/director's work, the history of film/music and can discuss film/music from a technical and artistic aspect. And even if they disagree, there are subtle points that can be learned by both the pros and cons.
That's why Citizen Kane is still being studied in film schools, because it's a work of art that withstands the test of time and takes the medium seriously
and is entertaining. Good work sustains, ie. The Beatles, Stanley Kubrick, Monty Python, Mozart, Picasso, etc.
And Grunt, I'm not just into the subversive/anti-hero stuff, lol. I love the old John Ford films and John "motherhumpin' Wayne pilgim! I grew up in the late 60's/early 70's, so I was raised on the "good guys wear white" paradigm.
I'm also with you on the 30's/40's black and white film noir stuff. Hard boiled, two-fisted Raymond Chandler, pal. James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart... And don't even get me started on the dames from back then! Va Va Voom!!! I can't stand where "beauty" has evolved to for a lot of mainstream people. Fake tits, bad plastic surgery, ugh. The barbie doll cookie cutter stripper look. I'll take a buxom burlesque chick from the 50's any day over Pam Anderson wannabes. But I have digressed a bit haven't I? Thinking about "Bettys" does that to me...
But if you want to know who is kicking America's ass this century in film making, it's the Asians. From anime to revenge and horror films, the Asians are doing the most cutting edge and original stuff right now imo.
If you haven't seen the Korean film 'Old Boy' yet, you really, really should because if you like brilliant film making, it's one of the best movies ever made. Beautifully shot, great soundtrack, acting, script and direction with a story that will blow your mind.
But
please watch it in it's original Korean language, it's much better...
I love the Clockwork Orange movie. I used to hate musicals, but as my tastes matured, I recently bought Fiddler on the Roof and like it as well. But, alas, I'm not a big fan of Hitchcock, nor most (all?) of the black and white stuff.
I love the Clockwork Orange movie. I used to hate musicals, but as my tastes matured, I recently bought Fiddler on the Roof and like it as well. But, alas, I'm not a big fan of Hitchcock, nor most (all?) of the black and white stuff.
If I vas a vich man, dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dooo...
Love that musical!
It's funny, I used to freaking
hate musicals, but as I'm getting older, I'm starting to really dig them. Especially seeing them live and in person.
Of course, being a rock and roller, my favorite two musicals are Rocky Horror and Hedwig.
Hmmm, transvestites and musicals...
Oh noz! I wonder if I'm turning teh gay!
But hey, I suppose it's okay to be a "little" gay, no?
Cue Ethel Merman: "There's
no business like
show business!"
But having said that, Andrew Lloyd Webber is the Michael Bay of musicals...
In my day, a tranny was a transmission, not a freak!
Without offending people, I must be so bold as to suggest if you don't like Hitchcock, you don't like film/cinema (at least as an art-form, vs movies as an entertainment vehicle).
I would also recommend Oldboy, but be forewarned, the film scores rather high on the disturbing scale.
So what Craig_P and audiosavant are saying is that movies as an art-form cannot be subjective?
<sprays accelerant over a match>
I refuse to watch "boring" TV. For me that is Crime dramas, Police stories, Doctor stories, Medical fix-em-up stories, boring black and white movies (including Alfred Hitchcock), TV sitcoms.
I enjoy artistic and the unusual, though.
Without offending people, I must be so bold as to suggest if you don't like Hitchcock, you don't like film/cinema (at least as an art-form, vs movies as an entertainment vehicle).
I would also recommend Oldboy, but be forewarned, the film scores rather high on the disturbing scale.
So even though I like the works of Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, Vincent van Gogh I don’t like painting (as an art form) because I hate the works of Claude Monet and don’t care for those of Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo Buonarroti.
I took a university course called “Film as Art” not one Hitchcock film was reviewed. What constitutes art is far to subjective for me to draw such a stark distinction, but to each his own. No offense take BTW.
I love Hitchcock..... Many current movies don't know how to build psychological tension. They jus' blow stuff up real good!
(Which can be fun, too.....)
I've been finding that I enjoy TV dramas more than movies lately. I've not seen many movies that wind me up as much as any number of Battlestar Galactica episodes.
Many current movies don't know how to build psychological tension.
Totally agree. Which is why I’ve gotten hooked on some anime (DeathNote) and like Ken Battlestar Galactica. I also prefer the more in-depth storytelling available to a series vs a movie.
I like the Grandaddy of all courtroom dramas, Perry Mason. Always try to figure out whodunnit, nearly always wrong. Mark's assessment of Hitchcock is accurate imo, and we could use some shows that don't spell everything out for us.
I took a university course called “Film as Art” not one Hitchcock film was reviewed. What constitutes art is far to subjective for me to draw such a stark distinction, but to each his own. No offense take BTW.
I knew that would get a reaction. I may have worded it poorly too. I suppose what I meant by film as an art-form is film as what the French called "pure cimema", whereby the use of the technical aspects of film are used to convey the message. So delete script/story, acting etc, and just look at shot composition, editing, camera movement, etc. In that strict sense, Hitchcock may be peerless, so I would say that if one didn't appreciate his work from that point, one doesn't appreciate "pure cinema". There is of course other ways to look at film, I'm just speaking of one.
Psycho would be a great example of pure cinema. The story is rather mundane, the acting average, screenplay adequate, but the movie is considered one the greatest of all time, because the technical aspects are so brilliant. You could easily do an entire film course on that one movie.
This thread really got hi-jacked from it's original topic. oops.
Now, to allow people to throw stones at me, I say the following: I love music, can't stand The Beatles.
“Pure Cinema” is a part of what I was thinking about in terms of cinema as art and don’t disagree Hichcock does a lot however, I still don’t care for his work because his technique alone doesn’t engage me enough to make me like his works as a whole. Doesn’t mean it’s not art just a particular artist who’s work I don’t care for regardless of it’s technical merits.
FWIW I generally consider a thing art when it evokes something more than the superficiality of the media taken literally would dictate. For example someone posted a purely CGI video a while back that I considered very artistic and liked it. OTOH, I do view Hitchcock’s work as artistic I just don’t like it because to me his devices are too contrived and the other aspects of his “story-telling” (writing, acting . . .) are not strong enough to make up for that IMO.
I can see your POV I just disagree that one must appreciate a particular “artist” to appreciate their media as an art form.
Battlestar Galactica - addictive.
Caprica - peculiar. I record every episode.
Deadwood - the F Bomb met Shakespeare.
Burn Notice - I hate myself for watching it.
The Unit
Entourage.
Art? It's in the eye, like a sharp stick.
Without offending people, I must be so bold as to suggest if you don't like Hitchcock, you don't like film/cinema (at least as an art-form, vs movies as an entertainment vehicle).
I would also recommend Oldboy, but be forewarned, the film scores rather high on the disturbing scale.
Since I speak Korean, I watch some Korean movies (not a lot though). Old Boy is not only disturbing, but the ending has a better twist than Sixth Sense, No Way Out and Dead Again. I could even throw Primal Fear in there I suppose.
My jaw literally dropped open at the end. What a crazy/disturbing ending. I heard that Quentin Tarantino was going to remake it in the States. We'll see.
I heard that Quentin Tarantino was going to remake it in the States. We'll see.
The last thing I had read was that Steven Spielberg (!) had the rights and was going to remake it starring Will Smith (!!!!). I believe this has fallen by the wayside though.
It's funny. CraigP and Grunt are both right in a way.
I do think that someone who is a legitimate "critic" must be mostly objective in their reviews. Sure, they will bring their own prejudices and expectations to bear on their perspective of what they are reviewing, but good criticism should leave personal opinion at the door. I think it's far more important to be able to deconstruct and interpret the objectives/motives of the artist's work and inform a viewer/listener of the value of said work.
And usually, after time, a consensus is formed. That is why someone like Stanley Kubrick is considered a great filmmaker. I think he's perhaps one of the best directors to ever make movies. That's my opinion, but it's also the consensus of most critics. A lot of people think his work is cold and technical. I can see that as a valid criticism, but still, he is regarded as a genius by critics, and rightly so.
The same for Hitchcock. Whether you like his work or not, he was a master director who invented a rich film vocabulary (especially structurally, as in the editing and pacing of his films) that is still used in countless movies today. Films that people (who don't particularly like Hitchcock) enjoy immensely. Modern movies would not be the same without his contributions. That is a fact, not an opinion. I think that is the problem with armchair critics, they confuse their likes/dislikes with the actual value of the work and it's place in the context of cinema/music as a whole. And if that is not of interest to you, then you are a consumer of movies, not a student of "cinema".
For example, I'm personally not into the music of Bruce Springsteen, but I recognize his importance and value as an artist. He is an incredible writer and performer and I would like to think that I could be objective and rate his work within the parameters of his past/current work and to be able to competently convey that to someone who loves his music unequivocally. To bring a different perspective that a gushing fanboy, who might not be able to be as objective, would miss.
Buts that's just my opinion, lol!
Seriously, film and music are the two subjects that I can discuss at great length and with vast knowledge. Baseball? Nope, I'm an idiot. Architecture? Well, I can say "that's a cool building!", but can i dissect why it's cool? No.
Lol, reminds me of what someone once said about music criticism, "Writing about music is like dancing to architecture."
Critics who are "mostly objective" are still just using their knowledge to convince you of their personal opinion. I don't have a problem with that, either. The idea is to find a reviewer whose tastes closely match your own before you shell out money to either be entertained or arted on. Long-winded appraisals of the technical merits aren't really going to be an effective guide for whether a movie is going to be of value to you. That being said, it can still be interesting to read about the little tricks in cinematography that make the scenes work better. The only problem is that these descriptions of the genius at work are usually more interesting than the actual genius at work.
I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing again. Don't mind me.
I think that is the problem with armchair critics, they confuse their likes/dislikes with the actual value of the work and it's place in the context of cinema/music as a whole. And if that is not of interest to you, then you are a consumer of movies, not a student of "cinema".
I would make a distinction between “critics” armchair or professional and academics. Perhaps it’s just semantics but I look to critics to find out if I’m going to enjoy something or not whereas I look to academics to deconstruct and explain something. Certainly the distinction between the two can be blurred especially with contemporary work. Historically critics can be notoriously harsh on something and then the scholars come along much later and point out it’s technical merits. Which often then becomes “critical” acclaim for later generations.
One can dislike something while still accepting it has technical merit. In almost every endeavor it’s commonplace to see people “like” something because of “critical” or scholarly acclaim, it’s fashionable (not implying liking Hitchcock is just fashionable). OTOH if one doesn’t “like” the icons of the genre then they are perceived as naïve. I just see this as a form of snobbery and if any field is rife with this attitude it the arts.
But there are different levels of enjoyment/acclaim. For example, I enjoyed Armageddon like you wouldn't believe. Pure brain-candy entertainment movie. Same with movies that "The Rock"/Dwayne Johnson stars in. Just entertainment and not a serious "work of art."
Then you have the next category for movies made by folks like Ron Howard. They are quite entertaining but more than just brain-candy.
And the of course, you have the luminaries that most people think about. But for me, I enjoy Michael Bay's movie as much as Ron Howard's as well as Rob Reiner!
I heard that Quentin Tarantino was going to remake it in the States. We'll see.
The last thing I had read was that Steven Spielberg (!) had the rights and was going to remake it starring Will Smith (!!!!). I believe this has fallen by the wayside though.
THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL that Will Smith can play that role....no way!
I like art. I don’t understand half of what I look at, but for the most part, I enjoy it. Well, other than “art” that consists of paint splattered on canvas by a drug induced lunatic anyway. I do not however understand what film art is. It’s either entertaining to me or not. If I fall asleep while watching, it sucks.
Where would Blade Runner fit into the whole art verses entertainment mix?? I always felt that was a great movie and still one of my favorites.
I just watched The Book of Eli at the theater. Up until the very end I just thought it was another doomsday / hero movie and then was completely blown away when a particular ‘thing’ was revealed that will spoil it for everyone if I say what it was. And no, I am not religious. That ended pulled it off for me.
Ah yes, Blade Runner is timeless. Amazing how the special effects of that 80's movie holds up today.
I don't study movie's at all, I just love it when a movie comes out that's different from everything else out at the time. Some of my favorites of which are the original Star Wars (decades ahead of any other sci-fi movie up to that date), Angel Heart, Resevior Dogs, Cast Away, Lord of the Rings, No Country for Old Men, and I must say, I was fooled hook, line and sinker by Shutter Island. I believed the premise up until the very last minute of that movie.
So long as it has the ability to keep you entertained no matter what year or decade you may be in, then it's a winner in my book. But I suppose what's entertaining is as subjective as it gets now isn't it!
I view music, movies, and books in largely the same way--I very much enjoy all three types of entertainment but I am hardly a student of either medium. For the most part, I watch a movie and I either like it or don't like it (to differing degrees, of course). The same is true for music.
That being said, I agree with Micah about stuff that is different. There are some movies, music, and groups that to me stand above the rest. In my case, that typically (though not always) is because the movie, song, book or whatever has broken new ground, at least in my experience. For example, my favorite movie of all time is Pulp Fiction. I think it has great dialogue and it was different than anything I'd seen at the time. In short, I think it truly is brilliant. Another example is the Red Hot Chili Peppers. While they were never my favorite group, I always respected them because I thought, again at least at the time and in my experience, that they were doing something nobody had done in terms of style. Finally, Vonegut is my favorite author. I've never read anybody who does literature like he did. Again, I think his work is just brilliant (particularly Slaughterhouse Five).
For different, I always liked Star Wars, Donnie Darko, Blue Velvet, Clockwork Orange, 2001, AI, Beowolf, Firefly, Harry Potter, Riddick Trilogy, Dune (tv series). For artistic, I like to put in that category, films like The New World, Flying Daggers, Mirror Mask, Baraka, Elizabeth, Saawariya.
Artistic is very subjective.
Update: My brother-in-law went with a Denon AVR-1910. He got a deal on it which made it less than $400 after shipping, I think. Here's hoping it does everything he wants. I'm kind of excited to hear what he thinks of it after he gets it.
My sister says with Dynamic EQ on she's been noticing details she hadn't heard before. They tend to listen at lower volumes, so that makes sense. She doesn't like the Denon remote, though, which seems to be a common complaint. I can't remember what she didn't like specifically, but I think I may get her a Harmony at some point. I want to get one just to try one out. I've never had a problem using multiple remotes, so this would simply let me trial the universal lifestyle, and if it's not something that dramatically improves my life, I can pass it on to my sister to replace the apparently crappy Denon remote. Is the Harmony One sort of the sweet spot in features and price? It seems to be.
I would say the 700 is as it is a little cheaper and has nearly the same functionality. It accepts a few less devices and needs to be plugged in via USB to recharge other than that I would say it is the best of function and price.
Hmm, it says it supports up to 6 devices while the One supports up to 15. I only have 5 devices to control right now, but I can see exceeding that pretty easily. But you're right, it does seem like the better deal for most people.
If you don't need rf, and you truely want to check out a harmony, the "one" is the way to go