Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[Memnon]

I recently read an article that talked about Cosmopolis director David Cronenberg criticising Batman, saying it wasn't "art" and it was still just Batman running around in a stupid cape:

http://popwatch.ew.c...k-knight-rises/

This part of the article stood out to me:

Christopher Nolan’s best movie is Memento, and that is an interesting movie. I don’t think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they’re 20 million times the expense… superhero movie, by definition, you know, it’s comic book. It’s for kids. It’s adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, Dark Knight Rises is, you know, “supreme cinema art,” I don’t think they know what the f— they’re talking about.

First, my personal opinion was that Cosmopolis was absolute dreck and Batman was a great movie (a great series). So that's a good baseline for where I stand. This got me to thinking about this debate about what is art (artistic integrity), how it applies to entertaimnent, specifically ME3.

I guess my question is - why do games have to be art/artistic? Isn't it enough that they are fun, immersive, and entertaining? Are art and entertainment now mutually exclusive? Why are things like movies, TV shows, and now video games critisized for not being art, when it should be enough that they are fun experience? Call me lowbrow, but I'll take the Batman trilogy or LOTR trilogy any day over watching Robert Pattison complain about an asymmetric prostate every 5 minutes. And I will take the ME1 and ME2 endings any day over ME3  ... again, just my opinion

Modifié par Stornskar, 20 août 2012 - 04:53 .