There’s always been a high brow/low brow battle with the arts, movies especially. Of course, it’s mostly bullshit. Often I think it’s people thinking they’re being perceived as either uncultured and less sophisticated because they like a certain thing, or pretentious and condescending because they like this other thing, then projecting frustration into conversations about those things. No one likes to be talked down to, and the stuff you like gets tied up with your identity, so you lash out.
That happens in this thread sometimes. But mostly it doesn’t! Mostly it’s people talking about whatever weird shit they’re into because movies is movies. But sometimes something gets said that, intentionally or not, feels like a high brow/low brow shot fired.
That’s why something like “expand your cinematic vocabulary” or whatever it was can both be generally good advice, and a goose thing to say.
It makes talking about certain kinds of art... difficult sometimes.
i am calling bullshit on this. and i am not gonna mean to come off as hostile, but i might.
i think it's an utter cop out "both sides are wrong" way of looking of things, and as someone who knows a lot about a lot of films, it irritates me to no end. (this is the only time i am gonna be that guy)
fact of the matter is, these arguments are all couched in the academic ideal of the important movie -- that's where the expansion of the vocabulary comes from. this all stemmed from someone not liking kubrick, after all -- not rejecting an entire litany of films. just one guy's work. one fucking guy's.
it's a certain number of certain films from certain men from certain countries about certain ideas and that fit into certain genres that become the "vocabulary of cinema" or whatever fucking bullshit you want to call it. actively touting any of these things as sacred cows actively dismisses any talk of the shit on the fringes with equal standing, and i hate it. i hate it more than anything in this world. it's a pre-decided popularity contest. it's telling people what they should like better. opinions aren't objective, my dudes.
this compounds exponentially when the argument veers into watching stuff you don't like, so as to better appreciate what you do like, the form, the craft, the art, or whatever you want to claim here. fucking, why?. i can get a textbook to explain blocking to me, i don't gotta be bored to shit by citizen kane. do you know how many genres there are out there? do you know how many films? how many interesting dudes, ladies, etc doing something completely different that might be so up your alley but you never discovered? why in the fuck would you tie yourself to any sort of canon list when there is so much out there? especially, since, for all the talk of art, end of the day? it's a product that is created and distributed to the masses. it's entertainment, son. it's there to take your bucks and put your butt in the seat. there is nothing more noble about one film over another.
why is it important people watch and/or like some movies over anything else? what is gained, as a person, from seeing every single hitchock film? or kurosawa film? i ask this rhetorically, because whatever you tell me applies to the person answering and only the person answering. it just ain't important. and i am not arguing craft or historical importance -- people can recognize that pretty easily and it isn't actually a selling point.
it's just. fuck. there is so much out there. why do you even care if someone wants to try to make their own unique dent in the billion+ hours and counting of media their own way?
GustavFriend of GoatsSomewhere in the OzarksRegistered Userregular
I definitely watch/read a lot of stuff I don't like or don't care about just from a dissection point. Just from an angle of being a storyteller myself it fascinates me. But I don't think it's necessary for anyone but my own edification really.
I liked The Last Jedi the first time I saw it. I loved it a lot the second time I saw it. I really enjoyed it but the first half kind of dragged the third time I saw it.
What's especially ridiculous about the "watch a movie you don't like so you can appreciate the craft" argument is fucking YOUTUBE EXISTS. If there's a scene that's really important you can just watch that scene. If the entire movie is important for how it fits together or whatever, I can probably find a film critic who can deliver that same experience to me in a much shorter and more interesting fashion. If a movie is interesting but not entertaining, why not just find someone entertaining who can tell you why it's interesting instead? And that's just assuming that I care to seek out that particular cultural touchstone. Literally no one is keyed into everything that's considered important in any given culture. It's physically impossible to do that.
Not to mention the fact that by inspiring a ton of different stuff that came after it, you get everything you could out of the original through derivative works. The first 9 seasons of The Simpsons alone have probably given me everything I could want from Citizen Kane.
I definitely watch/read a lot of stuff I don't like or don't care about just from a dissection point. Just from an angle of being a storyteller myself it fascinates me. But I don't think it's necessary for anyone but my own edification really.
did you think you were gonna like it ahead of time? because if so, yeah, no one bats a thousand in that regard. if it's the latter, i think everyone has some variation of it, with different end goals
it's the ol' "that looks terrible....i gotta see it"
I just think that boiling everything down to does it entertain me is not how everyone views art or film specifically. Films are not only entertainment. Many have that quality, but it is not a marker of quality.
I think it’s equally dismissive to say “YouTube exists” or that derivative works are fine when someone is talking about an artistic medium.
If entertainment is where you draw that line for spending your time, then fine, cool. But it isn’t true that it’s the only one or that relegating those that aren’t to the garbage pile is worthwhile.
GustavFriend of GoatsSomewhere in the OzarksRegistered Userregular
edited April 2018
A bit of both really. But I also like to create bizarre challenges for myself. Especially when I was reviewing. Especially contextual stuff.
Like before BvS I watched the four hour cut of Watchmen that morning to kinda add a context of one filmmaker tackling stories and iconography specific to that era of comics
There’s always been a high brow/low brow battle with the arts, movies especially. Of course, it’s mostly bullshit. Often I think it’s people thinking they’re being perceived as either uncultured and less sophisticated because they like a certain thing, or pretentious and condescending because they like this other thing, then projecting frustration into conversations about those things. No one likes to be talked down to, and the stuff you like gets tied up with your identity, so you lash out.
That happens in this thread sometimes. But mostly it doesn’t! Mostly it’s people talking about whatever weird shit they’re into because movies is movies. But sometimes something gets said that, intentionally or not, feels like a high brow/low brow shot fired.
That’s why something like “expand your cinematic vocabulary” or whatever it was can both be generally good advice, and a goose thing to say.
It makes talking about certain kinds of art... difficult sometimes.
i am calling bullshit on this. and i am not gonna mean to come off as hostile, but i might.
i think it's an utter cop out "both sides are wrong" way of looking of things, and as someone who knows a lot about a lot of films, it irritates me to no end. (this is the only time i am gonna be that guy)
fact of the matter is, these arguments are all couched in the academic ideal of the important movie -- that's where the expansion of the vocabulary comes from. this all stemmed from someone not liking kubrick, after all -- not rejecting an entire litany of films. just one guy's work. one fucking guy's.
it's a certain number of certain films from certain men from certain countries about certain ideas and that fit into certain genres that become the "vocabulary of cinema" or whatever fucking bullshit you want to call it. actively touting any of these things as sacred cows actively dismisses any talk of the shit on the fringes with equal standing, and i hate it. i hate it more than anything in this world. it's a pre-decided popularity contest. it's telling people what they should like better. opinions aren't objective, my dudes.
this compounds exponentially when the argument veers into watching stuff you don't like, so as to better appreciate what you do like, the form, the craft, the art, or whatever you want to claim here. fucking, why?. i can get a textbook to explain blocking to me, i don't gotta be bored to shit by citizen kane. do you know how many genres there are out there? do you know how many films? how many interesting dudes, ladies, etc doing something completely different that might be so up your alley but you never discovered? why in the fuck would you tie yourself to any sort of canon list when there is so much out there? especially, since, for all the talk of art, end of the day? it's a product that is created and distributed to the masses. it's entertainment, son. it's there to take your bucks and put your butt in the seat. there is nothing more noble about one film over another.
why is it important people watch and/or like some movies over anything else? what is gained, as a person, from seeing every single hitchock film? or kurosawa film? i ask this rhetorically, because whatever you tell me applies to the person answering and only the person answering. it just ain't important. and i am not arguing craft or historical importance -- people can recognize that pretty easily and it isn't actually a selling point.
it's just. fuck. there is so much out there. why do you even care if someone wants to try to make their own unique dent in the billion+ hours and counting of media their own way?
Yeah, I basically agree with all of this. Although I’ll ideaistically disagree with the butts in seat entertainment bit, but whatever.
100% fuck a canon that’s just white dudes from western countries. The whole idea of a canon is tricky. There’s value to having a broadly curated list of good/important movies, because there’s more than a century of super prolific filmmaking that I believe is valuable. But of course, who decides that canon is a huge fucking problem, and if you decide to ignore and just do your own thing, so what? Watch what you like. The point is having more voices and more options, should you want some guidance.
But, and maybe it’s just because I’m an aspiring filmmaker who digs craft for craft’s sake, I’ll always advocate getting out of your comfort zone and digging into history (especially an international history), because I do believe there’s a lot of be gained by watching shit like Citizen Kane or 2001 or early Shanghai cinema or modern Iranian cinema or whatever fuck else. That doesn’t have to be classist or elitist. The history of art should be available for everyone. But I’ll also try not to judge anyone for not digging into that history, because then I’m being one of those I was talking about in my earlier post.
I took a film lecture class in college and we watched a ton of movies like Citizen Kane or a ton of silent films or early experimental art films that I never in a thousand years would have watched on my own.
I think it’s really, really cool to watch those kinds of movies in that setting and learn about how people came up with the lighting, angles, and techniques we all take for granted today. I would not really recommend someone to watch them outside that context.
I definitely watch/read a lot of stuff I don't like or don't care about just from a dissection point. Just from an angle of being a storyteller myself it fascinates me. But I don't think it's necessary for anyone but my own edification really.
did you think you were gonna like it ahead of time? because if so, yeah, no one bats a thousand in that regard. if it's the latter, i think everyone has some variation of it, with different end goals
it's the ol' "that looks terrible....i gotta see it"
I just personally don't feel like either my "I'm Gonna Love This" or "I'm Gonna Hate This" predictions are accurate enough on their own, so I end up watching a lot of stuff I don't think is necessarily up my alley, and sometimes end up really liking it. The reverse is also totally true, too. I guess there are sometimes really odd specific things I end up hating or loving about movies that are super hard to discern up front.
Like, I thought I would hate the Paddington movies (I'm not very into cheesy G-rated family comedies, I guess?), but I went into it because my wife wanted to see them and they basically blew my mind with how wonderful they both were. The pure sincerety won me over in a way I hadn't expected. Sorry if I came off sounding a bit condescending when I chimed in about it. I actually missed the part of the discussion about Kubrick that started that whole thing and wasn't really referencing that, just a general "don't close yourself off too much" sentiment (being relatively unaware just how many goddamn movies you actually do watch.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
There’s always been a high brow/low brow battle with the arts, movies especially. Of course, it’s mostly bullshit. Often I think it’s people thinking they’re being perceived as either uncultured and less sophisticated because they like a certain thing, or pretentious and condescending because they like this other thing, then projecting frustration into conversations about those things. No one likes to be talked down to, and the stuff you like gets tied up with your identity, so you lash out.
That happens in this thread sometimes. But mostly it doesn’t! Mostly it’s people talking about whatever weird shit they’re into because movies is movies. But sometimes something gets said that, intentionally or not, feels like a high brow/low brow shot fired.
That’s why something like “expand your cinematic vocabulary” or whatever it was can both be generally good advice, and a goose thing to say.
It makes talking about certain kinds of art... difficult sometimes.
i am calling bullshit on this. and i am not gonna mean to come off as hostile, but i might.
i think it's an utter cop out "both sides are wrong" way of looking of things, and as someone who knows a lot about a lot of films, it irritates me to no end. (this is the only time i am gonna be that guy)
fact of the matter is, these arguments are all couched in the academic ideal of the important movie -- that's where the expansion of the vocabulary comes from. this all stemmed from someone not liking kubrick, after all -- not rejecting an entire litany of films. just one guy's work. one fucking guy's.
it's a certain number of certain films from certain men from certain countries about certain ideas and that fit into certain genres that become the "vocabulary of cinema" or whatever fucking bullshit you want to call it. actively touting any of these things as sacred cows actively dismisses any talk of the shit on the fringes with equal standing, and i hate it. i hate it more than anything in this world. it's a pre-decided popularity contest. it's telling people what they should like better. opinions aren't objective, my dudes.
this compounds exponentially when the argument veers into watching stuff you don't like, so as to better appreciate what you do like, the form, the craft, the art, or whatever you want to claim here. fucking, why?. i can get a textbook to explain blocking to me, i don't gotta be bored to shit by citizen kane. do you know how many genres there are out there? do you know how many films? how many interesting dudes, ladies, etc doing something completely different that might be so up your alley but you never discovered? why in the fuck would you tie yourself to any sort of canon list when there is so much out there? especially, since, for all the talk of art, end of the day? it's a product that is created and distributed to the masses. it's entertainment, son. it's there to take your bucks and put your butt in the seat. there is nothing more noble about one film over another.
why is it important people watch and/or like some movies over anything else? what is gained, as a person, from seeing every single hitchock film? or kurosawa film? i ask this rhetorically, because whatever you tell me applies to the person answering and only the person answering. it just ain't important. and i am not arguing craft or historical importance -- people can recognize that pretty easily and it isn't actually a selling point.
it's just. fuck. there is so much out there. why do you even care if someone wants to try to make their own unique dent in the billion+ hours and counting of media their own way?
Yeah, I basically agree with all of this. Although I’ll ideaistically disagree with the butts in seat entertainment bit, but whatever.
100% fuck a canon that’s just white dudes from western countries. The whole idea of a canon is tricky. There’s value to having a broadly curated list of good/important movies, because there’s more than a century of super prolific filmmaking that I believe is valuable. But of course, who decides that canon is a huge fucking problem, and if you decide to ignore and just do your own thing, so what? Watch what you like. The point is having more voices and more options, should you want some guidance.
But, and maybe it’s just because I’m an aspiring filmmaker who digs craft for craft’s sake, I’ll always advocate getting out of your comfort zone and digging into history (especially an international history), because I do believe there’s a lot of be gained by watching shit like Citizen Kane or 2001 or early Shanghai cinema or modern Iranian cinema or whatever fuck else. That doesn’t have to be classist or elitist. The history of art should be available for everyone. But I’ll also try not to judge anyone for not digging into that history, because then I’m being one of those I was talking about in my earlier post.
I think there's a difference between watching something you don't know if you'll like versus watching something you think you'll hate. There's a lot of movies out there where they don't grab my attention but I don't necessarily have an aversion to them that, yeah it might be good for me to step outside my comfort zone and give them a shot. Maybe I'll discover something I never realized I'd like. But if it's from a creative team I've hated in the past or it's from a genre I know I don't care for, I'm not going to find anything revelatory there. I already have an informed opinion, it's just not a positive one.
I definitely watch/read a lot of stuff I don't like or don't care about just from a dissection point. Just from an angle of being a storyteller myself it fascinates me. But I don't think it's necessary for anyone but my own edification really.
did you think you were gonna like it ahead of time? because if so, yeah, no one bats a thousand in that regard. if it's the latter, i think everyone has some variation of it, with different end goals
it's the ol' "that looks terrible....i gotta see it"
I just personally don't feel like either my "I'm Gonna Love This" or "I'm Gonna Hate This" predictions are accurate enough on their own, so I end up watching a lot of stuff I don't think is necessarily up my alley, and sometimes end up really liking it. The reverse is also totally true, too. I guess there are sometimes really odd specific things I end up hating or loving about movies that are super hard to discern up front.
Like, I thought I would hate the Paddington movies (I'm not very into cheesy G-rated family comedies, I guess?), but I went into it because my wife wanted to see them and they basically blew my mind with how wonderful they both were. The pure sincerety won me over in a way I hadn't expected. Sorry if I came off sounding a bit condescending when I chimed in about it. I actually missed the part of the discussion about Kubrick that started that whole thing and wasn't really referencing that, just a general "don't close yourself off too much" sentiment (being relatively unaware just how many goddamn movies you actually do watch.
The thing is there's a difference between having word of mouth positive reactions make you go "okay I'll give this thing a shot", and what started this conversation, which was you telling pooro he might like the other Kubrick movies he hasn't seen after he'd seen four.
That is absolutely PLENTY of something to decide you would not like any more
i guess i don't see how entertainment is a dirty word? like, you want a film to evoke some sort of engagement from your audience, right? that's entertainment. taking your audience with you? that's entertainment. evoking something from your viewers? showing them something they've never seen? shocking them? breaking their hearts? giving them something to think about? giving them a mystery to solve? opening their eyes to themselves or their world around them? that's all entertainment, baby. even showing someone something so ugly they want to look away but can't, that's a form of entertainment, too.
how palatable or unpalatable the journey is, that'll be up to every different person in the audience. everyone's got their own deal. but, like, unless your end goal is to lecture or just tell people what the movie is about, you want engagement. and if i am engaging, i am entertained.
i guess i don't see how entertainment is a dirty word? like, you want a film to evoke some sort of engagement from your audience, right? that's entertainment. taking your audience with you? that's entertainment. evoking something from your viewers? showing them something they've never seen? shocking them? breaking their hearts? giving them something to think about? giving them a mystery to solve? opening their eyes to themselves or their world around them? that's all entertainment, baby. even showing someone something so ugly they want to look away but can't, that's a form of entertainment, too.
how palatable or unpalatable the journey is, that'll be up to every different person in the audience. everyone's got their own deal. but, like, unless your end goal is to lecture or just tell people what the movie is about, you want engagement. and if i am engaging, i am entertained.
This ties in to academics in ways outside of specifically film and literary analysis too. Because there are a lot of teachers out there at basically every level who think entertainment is somehow antithetical to informative. Learning about things can be entertaining without sacrificing understanding. In fact for a lot of people it increases understanding and retention, but so many people think if you make learning fun you're somehow undermining something.
okay and i think i gotta clarify the product thing -- that wasn't meant to denigrate anyone's work. but, really, if you make films, you want to make more films, right? so you gotta get people there to want to see them, right? and if you want future funding or gigs, you wanna prove you can turn some kind of profit. it's not a knock on art, but more a statement that all movies basically start on equal ground so the idea of raising one as more valuable and important to have seen is ludicrous to me.
This makes it even shittier that they not only kept him in Deadpool 2 but also have used him in the ad campaigns
The sexual abuse news broke long enough ago that he should have been cut out (they even admitted he doesn't have a large role) but they decided to just go NAH and now this clusterfuck happened a month or two before release and they look like even bigger idiots
This makes it even shittier that they not only kept him in Deadpool 2 but also have used him in the ad campaigns
The sexual abuse news broke long enough ago that he should have been cut out (they even admitted he doesn't have a large role) but they decided to just go NAH and now this clusterfuck happened a month or two before release and they look like even bigger idiots
Ready Player One, in theaters now, featuring TJ Miller as the only one of the core group of heroes that you conveniently never see and only hear the voice of
This makes it even shittier that they not only kept him in Deadpool 2 but also have used him in the ad campaigns
The sexual abuse news broke long enough ago that he should have been cut out (they even admitted he doesn't have a large role) but they decided to just go NAH and now this clusterfuck happened a month or two before release and they look like even bigger idiots
Ready Player One, in theaters now, featuring TJ Miller as the only one of the core group of heroes that you conveniently never see and only hear the voice of
I don't like how a lot of these slugs appear to be evading or even crawling back out of the dumpster, there was an interview with Vivica Fox on the CBC this morning and people were talking about Quentin Tarantino just as though that was a palatable thing to do
This makes it even shittier that they not only kept him in Deadpool 2 but also have used him in the ad campaigns
The sexual abuse news broke long enough ago that he should have been cut out (they even admitted he doesn't have a large role) but they decided to just go NAH and now this clusterfuck happened a month or two before release and they look like even bigger idiots
Ready Player One, in theaters now, featuring TJ Miller as the only one of the core group of heroes that you conveniently never see and only hear the voice of
I don't like how a lot of these slugs appear to be evading or even crawling back out of the dumpster, there was an interview with Vivica Fox on the CBC this morning and people were talking about Quentin Tarantino just as though that was a palatable thing to do
To be fair to Tarantino, which he probably doesn't deserve because he's a creep in many other ways, at least in the case of his history with Uma Thurman she's said she forgives him
This makes it even shittier that they not only kept him in Deadpool 2 but also have used him in the ad campaigns
The sexual abuse news broke long enough ago that he should have been cut out (they even admitted he doesn't have a large role) but they decided to just go NAH and now this clusterfuck happened a month or two before release and they look like even bigger idiots
I don't like how a lot of these slugs appear to be evading or even crawling back out of the dumpster, there was an interview with Vivica Fox on the CBC this morning and people were talking about Quentin Tarantino just as though that was a palatable thing to do
To be fair to Tarantino, which he probably doesn't deserve because he's a creep in many other ways
Agreed
+7
Options
CorporateLogoThe toilet knowshow I feelRegistered Userregular
Are we still doing hot takes?
Mine is “the French plantation scenes in Apocalypse Now Redux are good”
Do not have a cow, mortal.
+4
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
I don't like how a lot of these slugs appear to be evading or even crawling back out of the dumpster, there was an interview with Vivica Fox on the CBC this morning and people were talking about Quentin Tarantino just as though that was a palatable thing to do
I definitely watch/read a lot of stuff I don't like or don't care about just from a dissection point. Just from an angle of being a storyteller myself it fascinates me. But I don't think it's necessary for anyone but my own edification really.
did you think you were gonna like it ahead of time? because if so, yeah, no one bats a thousand in that regard. if it's the latter, i think everyone has some variation of it, with different end goals
it's the ol' "that looks terrible....i gotta see it"
I just personally don't feel like either my "I'm Gonna Love This" or "I'm Gonna Hate This" predictions are accurate enough on their own, so I end up watching a lot of stuff I don't think is necessarily up my alley, and sometimes end up really liking it. The reverse is also totally true, too. I guess there are sometimes really odd specific things I end up hating or loving about movies that are super hard to discern up front.
Like, I thought I would hate the Paddington movies (I'm not very into cheesy G-rated family comedies, I guess?), but I went into it because my wife wanted to see them and they basically blew my mind with how wonderful they both were. The pure sincerety won me over in a way I hadn't expected. Sorry if I came off sounding a bit condescending when I chimed in about it. I actually missed the part of the discussion about Kubrick that started that whole thing and wasn't really referencing that, just a general "don't close yourself off too much" sentiment (being relatively unaware just how many goddamn movies you actually do watch.
The thing is there's a difference between having word of mouth positive reactions make you go "okay I'll give this thing a shot", and what started this conversation, which was you telling pooro he might like the other Kubrick movies he hasn't seen after he'd seen four.
That is absolutely PLENTY of something to decide you would not like any more
Dude, that wasn't me. I responded to a different comment from Rorshach, and actually missed the chunk of discussion about Pooro and Kubrick (which is why I didn't initially see why my comment to Rorshach sounded way worse than I intended).
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
I don't like how a lot of these slugs appear to be evading or even crawling back out of the dumpster, there was an interview with Vivica Fox on the CBC this morning and people were talking about Quentin Tarantino just as though that was a palatable thing to do
Did Tarantino do something to Vivica Fox?
What a horrid thing to contemplate I don't know
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
This makes it even shittier that they not only kept him in Deadpool 2 but also have used him in the ad campaigns
The sexual abuse news broke long enough ago that he should have been cut out (they even admitted he doesn't have a large role) but they decided to just go NAH and now this clusterfuck happened a month or two before release and they look like even bigger idiots
Ready Player One, in theaters now, featuring TJ Miller as the only one of the core group of heroes that you conveniently never see and only hear the voice of
I also thought that was an oddly notable thing, that you never saw meatverse TJ Miller, even as a quick cutaway gag. Which was nice, honestly, because I spent a few minutes dreading him popping up.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Posts
I just can't fucking stand being told I didn't like something because I didn't understand it.
i am calling bullshit on this. and i am not gonna mean to come off as hostile, but i might.
i think it's an utter cop out "both sides are wrong" way of looking of things, and as someone who knows a lot about a lot of films, it irritates me to no end. (this is the only time i am gonna be that guy)
fact of the matter is, these arguments are all couched in the academic ideal of the important movie -- that's where the expansion of the vocabulary comes from. this all stemmed from someone not liking kubrick, after all -- not rejecting an entire litany of films. just one guy's work. one fucking guy's.
it's a certain number of certain films from certain men from certain countries about certain ideas and that fit into certain genres that become the "vocabulary of cinema" or whatever fucking bullshit you want to call it. actively touting any of these things as sacred cows actively dismisses any talk of the shit on the fringes with equal standing, and i hate it. i hate it more than anything in this world. it's a pre-decided popularity contest. it's telling people what they should like better. opinions aren't objective, my dudes.
this compounds exponentially when the argument veers into watching stuff you don't like, so as to better appreciate what you do like, the form, the craft, the art, or whatever you want to claim here. fucking, why?. i can get a textbook to explain blocking to me, i don't gotta be bored to shit by citizen kane. do you know how many genres there are out there? do you know how many films? how many interesting dudes, ladies, etc doing something completely different that might be so up your alley but you never discovered? why in the fuck would you tie yourself to any sort of canon list when there is so much out there? especially, since, for all the talk of art, end of the day? it's a product that is created and distributed to the masses. it's entertainment, son. it's there to take your bucks and put your butt in the seat. there is nothing more noble about one film over another.
why is it important people watch and/or like some movies over anything else? what is gained, as a person, from seeing every single hitchock film? or kurosawa film? i ask this rhetorically, because whatever you tell me applies to the person answering and only the person answering. it just ain't important. and i am not arguing craft or historical importance -- people can recognize that pretty easily and it isn't actually a selling point.
it's just. fuck. there is so much out there. why do you even care if someone wants to try to make their own unique dent in the billion+ hours and counting of media their own way?
This reminded me of the mbmbam gom jabbar bit, thank you
It's probably my second favorite Star Wars movie.
Not to mention the fact that by inspiring a ton of different stuff that came after it, you get everything you could out of the original through derivative works. The first 9 seasons of The Simpsons alone have probably given me everything I could want from Citizen Kane.
Deadpool 2, in theaters this Summer!
did you think you were gonna like it ahead of time? because if so, yeah, no one bats a thousand in that regard. if it's the latter, i think everyone has some variation of it, with different end goals
it's the ol' "that looks terrible....i gotta see it"
I think it’s equally dismissive to say “YouTube exists” or that derivative works are fine when someone is talking about an artistic medium.
If entertainment is where you draw that line for spending your time, then fine, cool. But it isn’t true that it’s the only one or that relegating those that aren’t to the garbage pile is worthwhile.
Like before BvS I watched the four hour cut of Watchmen that morning to kinda add a context of one filmmaker tackling stories and iconography specific to that era of comics
Yeah, I basically agree with all of this. Although I’ll ideaistically disagree with the butts in seat entertainment bit, but whatever.
100% fuck a canon that’s just white dudes from western countries. The whole idea of a canon is tricky. There’s value to having a broadly curated list of good/important movies, because there’s more than a century of super prolific filmmaking that I believe is valuable. But of course, who decides that canon is a huge fucking problem, and if you decide to ignore and just do your own thing, so what? Watch what you like. The point is having more voices and more options, should you want some guidance.
But, and maybe it’s just because I’m an aspiring filmmaker who digs craft for craft’s sake, I’ll always advocate getting out of your comfort zone and digging into history (especially an international history), because I do believe there’s a lot of be gained by watching shit like Citizen Kane or 2001 or early Shanghai cinema or modern Iranian cinema or whatever fuck else. That doesn’t have to be classist or elitist. The history of art should be available for everyone. But I’ll also try not to judge anyone for not digging into that history, because then I’m being one of those I was talking about in my earlier post.
I think it’s really, really cool to watch those kinds of movies in that setting and learn about how people came up with the lighting, angles, and techniques we all take for granted today. I would not really recommend someone to watch them outside that context.
Well that's a new one. Like... claiming she had a bomb on her or pretending she was calling a bomb threat on the train?
Which is even worse than what I originally thought!
I hope the rest of his career is spent signing headshots at bush league cons for five bucks apiece
I just personally don't feel like either my "I'm Gonna Love This" or "I'm Gonna Hate This" predictions are accurate enough on their own, so I end up watching a lot of stuff I don't think is necessarily up my alley, and sometimes end up really liking it. The reverse is also totally true, too. I guess there are sometimes really odd specific things I end up hating or loving about movies that are super hard to discern up front.
Like, I thought I would hate the Paddington movies (I'm not very into cheesy G-rated family comedies, I guess?), but I went into it because my wife wanted to see them and they basically blew my mind with how wonderful they both were. The pure sincerety won me over in a way I hadn't expected. Sorry if I came off sounding a bit condescending when I chimed in about it. I actually missed the part of the discussion about Kubrick that started that whole thing and wasn't really referencing that, just a general "don't close yourself off too much" sentiment (being relatively unaware just how many goddamn movies you actually do watch.
and I hope he gets what help he needs
but also he sucks
I think there's a difference between watching something you don't know if you'll like versus watching something you think you'll hate. There's a lot of movies out there where they don't grab my attention but I don't necessarily have an aversion to them that, yeah it might be good for me to step outside my comfort zone and give them a shot. Maybe I'll discover something I never realized I'd like. But if it's from a creative team I've hated in the past or it's from a genre I know I don't care for, I'm not going to find anything revelatory there. I already have an informed opinion, it's just not a positive one.
The thing is there's a difference between having word of mouth positive reactions make you go "okay I'll give this thing a shot", and what started this conversation, which was you telling pooro he might like the other Kubrick movies he hasn't seen after he'd seen four.
That is absolutely PLENTY of something to decide you would not like any more
how palatable or unpalatable the journey is, that'll be up to every different person in the audience. everyone's got their own deal. but, like, unless your end goal is to lecture or just tell people what the movie is about, you want engagement. and if i am engaging, i am entertained.
This ties in to academics in ways outside of specifically film and literary analysis too. Because there are a lot of teachers out there at basically every level who think entertainment is somehow antithetical to informative. Learning about things can be entertaining without sacrificing understanding. In fact for a lot of people it increases understanding and retention, but so many people think if you make learning fun you're somehow undermining something.
The sexual abuse news broke long enough ago that he should have been cut out (they even admitted he doesn't have a large role) but they decided to just go NAH and now this clusterfuck happened a month or two before release and they look like even bigger idiots
Ready Player One, in theaters now, featuring TJ Miller as the only one of the core group of heroes that you conveniently never see and only hear the voice of
And I bet that was intentional on their part.
To be fair to Tarantino, which he probably doesn't deserve because he's a creep in many other ways, at least in the case of his history with Uma Thurman she's said she forgives him
Yeah it’s a severely bad look
Agreed
Mine is “the French plantation scenes in Apocalypse Now Redux are good”
Did Tarantino do something to Vivica Fox?
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
i dunno man
should he really be making more money than the helicopter zombie from dawn of the dead?
i posit no
Dude, that wasn't me. I responded to a different comment from Rorshach, and actually missed the chunk of discussion about Pooro and Kubrick (which is why I didn't initially see why my comment to Rorshach sounded way worse than I intended).
What a horrid thing to contemplate I don't know
I also thought that was an oddly notable thing, that you never saw meatverse TJ Miller, even as a quick cutaway gag. Which was nice, honestly, because I spent a few minutes dreading him popping up.