News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« on: March 25, 2002, 06:02:47 AM »
I refuse to watch something as narcissistic and self-indulgent as the Oscars, so this rant is based on my reading the winners this morning.

Lord of the Rings just might have been my favorite movie of all time.  If not, it is in a short list with Godfather (1 & 2), Caddyshack, and Forest Gump.  Sir Ian McKellen may have had the finest acting performance of all time.  If not, it certainly was up there with Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, Robert DeNiro in Raging Bull, and Al Pacino in Scarface.  Lord of The Rings was the first book I ever loved.  I have read it ten or more times.  The movie had to be a disappointment - right?  No, it was not.  McKellen brought Gandolf to life.  He was mesmerizing.  He took a character straight out of my dreams and made him real.  I had no idea who he was and now I cannot wait to see him again.  The guy is a genius.  Then I see that the movie loses to a politically correct lie called A Beautiful Mind and McKellen loses to a guy from a movie neither I nor anyone else has ever even heard of called Iris!

I am a masses movie fan.  Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings would have been my choices.  I think the academy is full of crap for picking artsy unwatchable junk when the two movies that grossed over $200M are relegated to nothing categories.  I wonder what the masses golf fan thinks of our site.  Do they look at our criticisms of Fazio and Rees's work and think we are full of crap?  Do they hear us heap praise on DeVries use of blind holes and think we are out of touch?  Am I as iconoclastic in golf as I feel the Academy is in movies?  Where is Dr. Katz?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

redanman

Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2002, 06:10:53 AM »
David

Always remember the concept of blondes, brunettes and redheads.

I find Spielberg unwatchable and nauseating and personally have no interest in fantasies, witches, goblins, sorcerers and the like.  I am not alone in these opinions.  Just can't buy into those kind of story lines, sorry.  It's all personal taste.  (I used to read science fiction as a kid and never will forget the time I bought a mainstream fantasy paperback thinking it was science fiction.  The pairing of fantasy and science fiction was a queer one, almost like modern  and classical (Non-existent in some minds)architecture.))

Fazio=Spielberg, now there's a truism if there ever was one.  Spielberg occasionally gets one right just as Fazio does, but most by each are glossy, commercial drivel.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Mike Cirba

Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2002, 06:24:45 AM »
Sorry, David...I have my own issues with the selections last night, but I shed no tears for "Bored of the Rings".

During the three hour movie, I probably checked my watch a good 25 times.  As far as McKellan, I found him cloying and breathed a sigh of relief as I watched him plunge to his doom.  It was the most light-hearted moment in a movie totally devoid of humor or purpose.

Ditto, Harry Potter.  

If 2001 was the year of the Epic Fantasy for film, thank God it's over.  

Although Ron Howard probably deserved something for his body of work, I was hoping for the real artist, David Lynch.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2002, 06:25:13 AM »
Redanman,

In a way, you answered my question.  For what it is worth, Spielberg had nothing to do with Lord of The Rings.  Off the top of my head, I can think of eight Spielberg movies that I loved: Jurassic Park, Raiders of The Lost Ark, ET, Close Encounters, Jaws, Shindlers List, Saving Private Ryan, Poltergeist.  I couldn’t guess at how many he has done, but his record of movies to great movies must be pretty high.  I think he is creative, trend setting and a risk taker.  I would assign none of those traits to Fazio.  That might be my point.  In movies, I am part of the masses.  In golf architecture, I am afraid I might be out of touch with the masses.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

redanman

Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2002, 06:42:41 AM »
Quote
Redanman,

In a way, you answered my question.  For what it is worth, Spielberg had nothing to do with Lord of The Rings.  I knew that, I just picked Spielberg as the best comparison to Fazio. 



I couldn’t guess at how many he has done, but his record of movies to great movies must be pretty high. I would rather say that his ratio of commercially successful movies (rather than great movies) is quite high.  


I think he is creative, trend setting and a risk taker.  I would assign none of those traits to Fazio.  I would assign these traits to neither. 8)   I would say that both are quite commercially successful.  Eye candy and all of that.


I'll bet you prefer brunettes or bald women! (This is all in fun you know!)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2002, 06:55:58 AM »
Dave writes:
"I wonder what the masses golf fan thinks of our site.  Do they look at our criticisms of Fazio and Rees's work and think we are full of crap?  Do they hear us heap praise on DeVries use of blind holes and think we are out of touch?  Am I as iconoclastic in golf as I feel the Academy is in movies?  "

IMHO the answer to the above question is yes.  But it will always be that way with any creative endeavor.  Remember how much better Jimmy Buffet was before he was known?  But at the same time it doesn't mean they can argue the point either.
Hope all is well,
Mike
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2002, 06:58:39 AM »
Redanman,

Your last comment has me a little worried.  I was taking this all in fun.  Please don't think I was offended at your remarks.  I wish I could figure out how to frame others comments though, I can't get it.

The point I am getting at is that in movies, I think I like blondes, as do most people.  I am wondering if in golf, I like bald women.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

redanman

Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2002, 07:00:24 AM »
Bald women are totally treeless courses of course!!!!! :P
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)

Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2002, 03:03:23 PM »
Alright, I must admit, I watched the Oscars.  :-[

Seriously though, there was an interesting comment made by Robert Redford, on the movie industry:  "Are we artists or entertainers?"

It's a question quite relevant to golf course architecture.  What is our true purposes?  To push the art?  Or to provide entertaining settings for the golfers?

Both are equally worthy goals.  Yet can they be pursued simultaneously, or are they mutually exclusive?

Redford also stated that the movie industry should welcome the "risks" as well as the "sure hits".

Once again, quite relevant to architecture.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2002, 09:19:09 PM »
Jeremy, At long last our paths cross once again. Thank you!

I too am a hopeless film buff. I see everything, In fact, I probably should have been in that business to some extent, but the sleazeness of what it take to get the GREEN light to make a film is distasteful enough to want ban myself to a morbid life of electrical work. {I hate that too}

Robert Redford is in fact an artist and probably only looked forward to stepping out there to shove that comment in all of the faces of the Halle Berry's and Julia Robert's out there in the audience. I doubt if they even understood any of it. "Blah, blah, blah!"

David, I couldn't agree more. Ian McKellan's performance was phenominal in LOTR, and it was an Oscar deserving performance. But so was Jim Broadbent's in "Iris" and even Russell Crowe's in ABM.

This years awards smacked of a political correctness, not just because of the color barrier being broken for Best Performance, but the fact that of all the wrongs that were placed on the modern personal life of John Nash and because of this insideous race for the gold, that we forget that the story is in fact--not fact. It was great movie making by two talented "commerical" film makers, but far from the reality that it projected.


Yes, David Lynch is one of America's great film amkers, but he is also in dire need of amking a film that has a subject matter that palatable for the movie going public.  (Something like "Blue Velvet") Don't forget the talented Coen Brothers whose movie "The Man Who Knew Very Little" was not even seen by their most devout fans. The studios, in their ever present state of grace decided that it should not be widely released, and thus eliminated anyone from ever having the chance to see black and white film noir at its finest.

Love or hate "Moulin Rouge!," the talent that it took to write, direct, and visionage that movie is unbelievable. Baz Lurmahnn went home with nothing. How about the effort it took to finally bring Lord Of the Rings to the silver screen, and for those of you out there that have read the books, the exacting recollection of the story and how it followed it as if Tolkein him self was directing it. Peter Jackson's efforts should never go unheralded, especially since they filmed two more movies in there! Talk about time consuming!

While I may be straying from Golf Architecture here, I can say that I relate all of it to as much of movie making as I do to vino.

That is where the real beauty of all of this comes from!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2002, 05:22:09 AM »
Tommy and Jeremy,

Thank you.  You crystallized the point that I could not quite get to.  It is an issue of art vs. entertainment.

Jeremy,

I believe that you have brought out a brilliant continuum.  On the pure entertainment side, you have a course like Primm Valley Lakes.  It is beautiful and every fairway is banked to keep bad shots in play.  Every green is bowled so you never fly off.  There is not one strategic value on the entire track but you will shoot a career round and really enjoy the eye candy.  On the art extreme might be a course like Shinnecock.  Extremely hard with adventure and shot value everywhere.  The courses the perfectly blend the two concepts are ones like Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, Kiawah, Bandon Dunes, Pete Dye Golf Club, etc.  They have beauty everywhere but if you get lost in the scenery, double bogeys will start appearing.  They are the movie equivalent of The Godfather part two.  It was beloved by the public and the critics.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Richard_Goodale

Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2002, 08:21:02 AM »
Jeremy

Great concept of Art and/vs. Entertainment.  I will probably always be on the Entertainment side, just as others will be solidly on the Arts side or switheringly in-between.  To me, "art" whether it be of the Robinson/Fazio/Muirhead school or of the Colt/MacKenzie/Thomas school or whatever "school" is far less important to me in any golf course than how it plays (i.e. "entertains" me).  It's all about "me" in the end, isn't it........
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2002, 09:10:06 AM »
Rich --

No, it's not all about you.

It's all about Julia Roberts -- possibly the most self-centered twit in the long history of the world's most self-centered town. This is the woman who couldn't announce the name of the winner of the Best Actor Oscar without first saying: "Oh, I love my life!"

Never forget this: It's all about Julia Roberts.

And, of course, Alan Greenspan.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Academy of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2002, 01:26:08 AM »
D.W. Griffith said it best about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

"What art? What science?"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.