Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:16 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15657 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688 ... 783  Next
Last Movie You Watched 
Author Message
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1576
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Quote:
Blacklit ice skating rinks may look interesting, but it's hard to argue that 'Running Scared' is not a particularly poorly written movie. It's not just because of the bad dialogue, of which the copious use of swearwords is only a symptom, or because it is a copycat Tarantino movie, which tries to be clever about using extreme violence (without having Tarantino's touch) and fit in pop culture references (the Russian gangster's obsession with an abridged version of a John Wayne movie). If I remember it correctly, the movie ends with a sort of twist - or rather, a revelation - that completely invalidates any prior action by the protagonist, including putting his own family into mortal danger.


You mean without having fanboys to back him up?

I really don't see any Tarantino connection. Do Tarantino's fanboys claim that he invented the swear word? Perhaps that he invented the concept of a gangster as well? Or the concept of eccentric characters? Or perhaps Reservoir Dogs was the first movie ever made to feature R-rated violence? And if all those things are true, I take it Kramer was the first one after Tarantino to use those devices himself? Please. It baffles me that people intentionally play dumb by making this argument, as if you've never seen a violent movie in your life that wasn't directed by Tarantino. As for the John Wayne thing, what is Kramer's sin? That he made a reference to an actor who was actually in good movies?

I was not simply referring to the interesting look of the skating rink, but also to the swiftness of the actions involved during this scene. And not only was I referring to those two things, but also to the thematic significance of holding the climax in a rink with hockey players. The whole point is the nightmare of the kids. All they can do is beg Walker to take them to the hockey game. In the end, the boy gets his wish but not quite in the way he had in mind. If that isn't clever, interesting writing, I don't know what is.

Quote:
If I remember it correctly, the movie ends with a sort of twist - or rather, a revelation - that completely invalidates any prior action by the protagonist, including putting his own family into mortal danger.


Again, this is a matter of interpreting the symbolism of the movie. The point is that every character is a figment of a nightmare or a dark fairy tale; therefore, an archetype. Everyone is a "cartoon" as Walker puts it in the end. Walker's true identity is a last minute simplification of his character because that's what happens to everyone in this movie. They're all cartooned, in other words infantilized, because everything is from the point of view of the kids.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:17 am
Profile
Online
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7252
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:

Quote:
If I remember it correctly, the movie ends with a sort of twist - or rather, a revelation - that completely invalidates any prior action by the protagonist, including putting his own family into mortal danger.


Again, this is a matter of interpreting the symbolism of the movie. The point is that every character is a figment of a nightmare or a dark fairy tale; therefore, an archetype. Everyone is a "cartoon" as Walker puts it in the end. Walker's true identity is a last minute simplification of his character because that's what happens to everyone in this movie. They're all cartooned, in other words infantilized, because everything is from the point of view of the kids.


Uh huh. Nothing you said there actually addressed his point. It's one of those movie-ending twists that repudiates a lot of what came before it, fairytale or no fairytale

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:33 am
Profile
Online
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1315
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Insidious Chapter 2 (2013)

The story is a complete, utter mess, and the pace is seriously meandering at times. I still enjoy Wan's craft and tricks though, especially in the fun climatic sequence. So in all worth a watch for me, but just barely. 6/10


Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:35 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1576
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:

Quote:
If I remember it correctly, the movie ends with a sort of twist - or rather, a revelation - that completely invalidates any prior action by the protagonist, including putting his own family into mortal danger.


Again, this is a matter of interpreting the symbolism of the movie. The point is that every character is a figment of a nightmare or a dark fairy tale; therefore, an archetype. Everyone is a "cartoon" as Walker puts it in the end. Walker's true identity is a last minute simplification of his character because that's what happens to everyone in this movie. They're all cartooned, in other words infantilized, because everything is from the point of view of the kids.


Uh huh. Nothing you said there actually addressed his point. It's one of those movie-ending twists that repudiates a lot of what came before it, fairytale or no fairytale


How exactly does it repudiate what came before it? How about compared to Nicholson's character being an informant in The Departed?


Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:46 am
Profile
Online
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7252
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
[quote="MGamesCook"

How exactly does it repudiate what came before it? How about compared to Nicholson's character being an informant in The Departed?[/quote]

Well for the record I'm not The Departed's biggest fan either. But the difference here is that Walker's character was in great danger (we believed) and HAD to do actions because he was a low level mobster and he/his family might die if he doesn't. The fact that he turns into a cop means he wasn't in that great danger and he didn't have to do those actions to save his family. It retroactively makes the movie less urgent

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:56 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1576
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
[quote="MGamesCook"

How exactly does it repudiate what came before it? How about compared to Nicholson's character being an informant in The Departed?


Well for the record I'm not The Departed's biggest fan either. But the difference here is that Walker's character was in great danger (we believed) and HAD to do actions because he was a low level mobster and he/his family might die if he doesn't. The fact that he turns into a cop means he wasn't in that great danger and he didn't have to do those actions to save his family. It retroactively makes the movie less urgent[/quote]

Retroactively is the key word there for me. Partly because Walker's perspective was never my main concern anyway. The urgency mostly comes from things unrelated to that. The Russian father's abusiveness, the pimp stalking the kid, and then the really bad stuff with the...parents who are up to no good. I guess the real reason it doesn't bother me is because even if that twist hadn't occurred, the basic storyline involving Walker's need to retrieve the gun would be generic either way. Admittedly, some of the scenes involving Walker's conversations with his criminal buddies and Chaz Palminterri feel like padding. But padding is almost inevitable in these all-nighter movies. Anyway, it's pretty much the same movie even if you take the twist out.

Some of the urgency for me comes from wondering what Kramer is up to with the weirdness and wondering what bad shit is gonna go down next. The movie is already pretty absurd even before the twist, so I figure the twist is just another way to try to reinforce the conceit. I'll concede that perhaps it's unnecessary; for me, a minor flaw.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:07 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 388
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
Blacklit ice skating rinks may look interesting, but it's hard to argue that 'Running Scared' is not a particularly poorly written movie. It's not just because of the bad dialogue, of which the copious use of swearwords is only a symptom, or because it is a copycat Tarantino movie, which tries to be clever about using extreme violence (without having Tarantino's touch) and fit in pop culture references (the Russian gangster's obsession with an abridged version of a John Wayne movie). If I remember it correctly, the movie ends with a sort of twist - or rather, a revelation - that completely invalidates any prior action by the protagonist, including putting his own family into mortal danger.


You mean without having fanboys to back him up?

I really don't see any Tarantino connection. Do Tarantino's fanboys claim that he invented the swear word? Perhaps that he invented the concept of a gangster as well? Or the concept of eccentric characters? Or perhaps Reservoir Dogs was the first movie ever made to feature R-rated violence? And if all those things are true, I take it Kramer was the first one after Tarantino to use those devices himself? Please. It baffles me that people intentionally play dumb by making this argument, as if you've never seen a violent movie in your life that wasn't directed by Tarantino. As for the John Wayne thing, what is Kramer's sin? That he made a reference to an actor who was actually in good movies?

I was not simply referring to the interesting look of the skating rink, but also to the swiftness of the actions involved during this scene. And not only was I referring to those two things, but also to the thematic significance of holding the climax in a rink with hockey players. The whole point is the nightmare of the kids. All they can do is beg Walker to take them to the hockey game. In the end, the boy gets his wish but not quite in the way he had in mind. If that isn't clever, interesting writing, I don't know what is.

Quote:
If I remember it correctly, the movie ends with a sort of twist - or rather, a revelation - that completely invalidates any prior action by the protagonist, including putting his own family into mortal danger.


Again, this is a matter of interpreting the symbolism of the movie. The point is that every character is a figment of a nightmare or a dark fairy tale; therefore, an archetype. Everyone is a "cartoon" as Walker puts it in the end. Walker's true identity is a last minute simplification of his character because that's what happens to everyone in this movie. They're all cartooned, in other words infantilized, because everything is from the point of view of the kids.


I don't quite follow: Are you calling be a Tarantino fanboy?

Anyway, I have never made the claims that you are addressing, but I concede that I haven't been precise about how 'Running Scared' is influenced by Tarantino movies, such as 'Reservoir Dogs' or 'Pulp Fiction' in particular. I've actually elaborated in a rather lengthy post, which, regrettably, didn't get posted, so excuse me for being very brief in my explanation on where I see Tarantino's influence.

Tarantino didn't invent quirky characters but he popularised that gangsters in gangster movies talk about stuff extraneous to the plot and make pop cultural references, such as discussing the name of hamburgers in continental Europe or the meaning of Madonna songs. Before Tarantino, a character such as the expatriate Russian gangster would probably not have had a John Wayne fetish to the extent of having a large tattoo of John Wayne on his back. Most certainly, he wouldn't have been a fan of a movie and having watched it hundreds of times without being aware that he has only seen an abridged version omitting the fact that John Wayne got shot at the end of the movie. This type of humour is also very Tarantino-esque.

Further, Tarantino has popularised the inclusion of transgressive acts, such as extreme or sexual violence, for thrills or laughs in gangster movies, which was largely the domain of horror movies or, more specifically, horror comedies. Unless it was a horror movie or the film would try to address the subject in a serious manner, a pre-1990 movie would be unlikely to feature a couple of child molester and child pornographers, at least not in a subplot which has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

Finally, I don't understand what a final plot twist has to do with symbolism and I'm afraid that I don't comprehend how it should be a good thing that characters are becoming less three-dimensional in the course of a movie, if that's what you're saying.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:14 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Personally I really don't see how Running Scared is really all that similar to Tarantino films, none of the humor felt like it was really Taratino-esque(a term which greatly annoys me BTW) quite honestly I like it better then most of his work, also I don't see how the trangressive and sexual violence alone alone automatically makes this film a rip-off, that just seems like a case of reaching.

Also I can name plenty of films before 1990 that had those kinds of characters(The Exterminator and Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects being two such examples). I disagree that a character wouldn't have some kind of John Wayne fetish if Tarantino hadn't come along, that's giving him WAY too much credit if you ask me. Reservoir Dogs itself wasn't all that original, it lifted quite a lot from the superior Ringo Lam film "City Of Fire", so I think if anyone deserves credit for all that stuff, it's him, not Tarantino.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:07 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 982
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I was never overly impressed with Tarantino's dialogue myself, he really overdoes with the pop-culture references sometimes.


Vexer...sometimes I just don't understand what makes you tick.


Sorry, a little late to the party, but I think I'll take a stab at this.

If I could pinpoint what drives Vexer's taste in movies, I think it would be that he enjoys unpretentious movies. Films that don't have delusions of grandeur, don't pretend to be anything greater than what they are, don't stand up and say "Look at me! I'm important! I'm Award-worthy! I'm cool!" He looks at movies from a fundamentally different perspective I suppose. He'll champion movies he feels are undervalued. And that's perfectly okay. The important thing is he doesn't attack anyone by calling them "shallow" or "fanboy" or other generalizations, something that critics like Armond White and Rex Reed do FAR too much of.

So there's my .02, I hope I'm somewhere in the ballpark with this theory.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:31 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
KWRoss wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I was never overly impressed with Tarantino's dialogue myself, he really overdoes with the pop-culture references sometimes.


Vexer...sometimes I just don't understand what makes you tick.


Sorry, a little late to the party, but I think I'll take a stab at this.

If I could pinpoint what drives Vexer's taste in movies, I think it would be that he enjoys unpretentious movies. Films that don't have delusions of grandeur, don't pretend to be anything greater than what they are, don't stand up and say "Look at me! I'm important! I'm Award-worthy! I'm cool!" He looks at movies from a fundamentally different perspective I suppose. He'll champion movies he feels are undervalued. And that's perfectly okay. The important thing is he doesn't attack anyone by calling them "shallow" or "fanboy" or other generalizations, something that critics like Armond White and Rex Reed do FAR too much of.

So there's my .02, I hope I'm somewhere in the ballpark with this theory.


Because the rest of us just can't wait to sit down and watch a pretentious movie.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:20 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
KWRoss wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I was never overly impressed with Tarantino's dialogue myself, he really overdoes with the pop-culture references sometimes.


Vexer...sometimes I just don't understand what makes you tick.


Sorry, a little late to the party, but I think I'll take a stab at this.

If I could pinpoint what drives Vexer's taste in movies, I think it would be that he enjoys unpretentious movies. Films that don't have delusions of grandeur, don't pretend to be anything greater than what they are, don't stand up and say "Look at me! I'm important! I'm Award-worthy! I'm cool!" He looks at movies from a fundamentally different perspective I suppose. He'll champion movies he feels are undervalued. And that's perfectly okay. The important thing is he doesn't attack anyone by calling them "shallow" or "fanboy" or other generalizations, something that critics like Armond White and Rex Reed do FAR too much of.

So there's my .02, I hope I'm somewhere in the ballpark with this theory.

Yeah, that's pretty much correct. I like films that are more off-the-beaten-path so to speak.

I just can't bring myself to get excited about most Oscar bait type films, Wolf Of Wall Street for example just dosen't look that good to me(i'm still dissapointed over Scorcese's last few films, Shutter Island was a complete mess and Hugo was rather misguided) i'm honestly more excited about Jack Ryan.

Also for the record I don't hate Tarantino, I just think sometimes people give him a little too much credit by seemingly labeling almost everything as a rip-off of his films. I like most of his work, but sometimes he comes off as a bit too pretentious for his own good(like James said, there was really no reason Kill Bill had to be split into two films, there just wasn't enough story to warrant it), I find his dialogue to be hit-and-miss, sometimes it's funny sometimes it's not(didn't think the breakfast scene in Dogs was all that funny, and most of the dialogue in Death Proof was just really bad) this was particularly glaring in his last two films. Basterds and Django just didn't do much for me and felt like a considerable step backwards from his earlier films.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:22 pm
Profile
Online
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7252
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Vexer wrote:

Also for the record I don't hate Tarantino, I just think sometimes people give him a little too much credit by seemingly labeling almost everything as a rip-off of his films. I like most of his work, but sometimes he comes off as a bit too pretentious for his own good(like James said, there was really no reason Kill Bill had to be split into two films, there just wasn't enough story to warrant it), I find his dialogue to be hit-and-miss, sometimes it's funny sometimes it's not(didn't think the breakfast scene in Dogs was all that funny, and most of the dialogue in Death Proof was just really bad) this was particularly glaring in his last two films. Basterds and Django just didn't do much for me and felt like a considerable step backwards from his earlier films.


Here's what bothers me about you, Vexer, and makes me think that perhaps you're not quite as genuine and un-troll-like as you maintain. Clearly you must like Pulp Fiction. Reading between the lines, after all, you said his work recently is a step backwards from his earlier films, but you don't like Kill Bill, you don't like Reservoir Dogs, you don't like Death Proof. So in order for his recent two to be a step backwards, you must like Pulp Fiction, right?

But you'll never say that, because everyone likes Pulp Fiction. You only make statements that are against the grain. You seem to delight in coming into a conversation about, say, Coppola and going "I never saw the big deal about Apocalypse Now. Jack is a far better film."

This tendency to only say the shocking, iconoclastic statement makes me think that you do have trollish tendencies

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:33 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
Vexer wrote:

Also for the record I don't hate Tarantino, I just think sometimes people give him a little too much credit by seemingly labeling almost everything as a rip-off of his films. I like most of his work, but sometimes he comes off as a bit too pretentious for his own good(like James said, there was really no reason Kill Bill had to be split into two films, there just wasn't enough story to warrant it), I find his dialogue to be hit-and-miss, sometimes it's funny sometimes it's not(didn't think the breakfast scene in Dogs was all that funny, and most of the dialogue in Death Proof was just really bad) this was particularly glaring in his last two films. Basterds and Django just didn't do much for me and felt like a considerable step backwards from his earlier films.


Here's what bothers me about you, Vexer, and makes me think that perhaps you're not quite as genuine and un-troll-like as you maintain. Clearly you must like Pulp Fiction. Reading between the lines, after all, you said his work recently is a step backwards from his earlier films, but you don't like Kill Bill, you don't like Reservoir Dogs, you don't like Death Proof. So in order for his recent two to be a step backwards, you must like Pulp Fiction, right?

But you'll never say that, because everyone likes Pulp Fiction. You only make statements that are against the grain. You seem to delight in coming into a conversation about, say, Coppola and going "I never saw the big deal about Apocalypse Now. Jack is a far better film."

This tendency to only say the shocking, iconoclastic statement makes me think that you do have trollish tendencies
Oh I like Kill Bill just fine, I just think it would've been better as one film instead of two, also I didn't hate Death Proof, I just found it rather average, the characters themselves were OK and there were some tense scenes but the dialogue just really weighed down the film at times. So my point still stands about his last two films being dissapointments.

Don't really see where you get the idea that I have "trollish" tendencies though, making statements "against the grain" dosen't automatically make me a "troll" :roll: I've seen you go against the grain a number of times yet i've never accused you of being one.

If you don't think i'm "genuine" then that's your problem, not mine :P


Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 982
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I think there's a big difference between "troll" and "contrarian." A contrarian is just someone who goes against the grain/consensus a lot. It's not good or bad; it just is what it is. I consider it a neutral descriptor. A troll, on the other hand, not only takes contrarian stances but insults the living hell out of people who go with the consensus. He/she frequently bashes said people as brainwashed, shallow, fanboys, sheep, etc. while shouting out "No. Listen to me. I'm right and they're wrong."

This is my fundamental problem with Armond White. His radically different opinions on movies doesn't bother me so much; it's the inflammatory way he goes about blasting everyone who might feel differently from him.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:00 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
KWRoss wrote:
I think there's a big difference between "troll" and "contrarian." A contrarian is just someone who goes against the grain/consensus a lot. It's not good or bad; it just is what it is. I consider it a neutral descriptor. A troll, on the other hand, not only takes contrarian stances but insults the living hell out of people who go with the consensus. He/she frequently bashes said people as brainwashed, shallow, fanboys, sheep, etc. while shouting out "No. Listen to me. I'm right and they're wrong."

This is my fundamental problem with Armond White. His radically different opinions on movies doesn't bother me so much; it's the inflammatory way he goes about blasting everyone who might feel differently from him.

Yeah, i've never bashed anyone for going with the consensus.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:26 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Isn't there a point where "contrarian" stops being meaningful and the person in question just has bad taste? I mean, good lord, people are so quick to defend someone's right to an opinion that they forget that other people are also allowed to think the opinion in question is just plain shit. Sure, everyone can think what they want, but that also means I'm allowed to think your opinion sucks. People might call me an asshole if I come into a thread and say something like, "Vexer's opinion about Film X sucks. I find no value in it whatsoever." But is that really all that different from him coming into a thread where people are discussing how much they love something and saying something like, "Movie Y is a vile piece of shit and I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than watch it again"?


Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:37 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
PeachyPete wrote:
Isn't there a point where "contrarian" stops being meaningful and the person in question just has bad taste? I mean, good lord, people are so quick to defend someone's right to an opinion that they forget that other people are also allowed to think the opinion in question is just plain shit. Sure, everyone can think what they want, but that also means I'm allowed to think your opinion sucks. People might call me an asshole if I come into a thread and say something like, "Vexer's opinion about Film X sucks. I find no value in it whatsoever." But is that really all that different from him coming into a thread where people are discussing how much they love something and saying something like, "Movie Y is a vile piece of shit and I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than watch it again"?

Well I didn't say anything that extreme on this particular thread recently(I reserve that kind of hate for films that truly deserve it, like Twilight and Your Highness), so I don't really see where all this hostility is coming from? :? Most of the time I avoid commenting on films everyone loves that I don't like.

Also whether one has "bad taste" in films is strictly a matter of opinion, not a fact. I could just as easily say that you have bad taste in films and that your opinion is garbage, but I don't.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:04 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 372
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
PeachyPete wrote:
Isn't there a point where "contrarian" stops being meaningful and the person in question just has bad taste? I mean, good lord, people are so quick to defend someone's right to an opinion that they forget that other people are also allowed to think the opinion in question is just plain shit. Sure, everyone can think what they want, but that also means I'm allowed to think your opinion sucks. People might call me an asshole if I come into a thread and say something like, "Vexer's opinion about Film X sucks. I find no value in it whatsoever." But is that really all that different from him coming into a thread where people are discussing how much they love something and saying something like, "Movie Y is a vile piece of shit and I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than watch it again"?


Amen and amen.

Vexer wrote:
Also whether one has "bad taste" in films is strictly a matter of opinion, not a fact. I could just as easily say that you have bad taste in films and that your opinion is garbage, but I don't.


Yes, you do. Maybe not Petey specifically in this case, but that's what you do when you stop by a thread to not address the topic but rather just slam someone's opinion without substance, which is often your MO. As I've said repeatedly: if you want to tear down a film with reasons and arguments, by all means, that's the whole point of the forum. But just scoffing adds nothing.

And yes, you can absolutely hold any opinion you want, but some opinions are wrong. The fact that a certain opinion can be held doesn't make it right or defenseable or worthy of consideration.

Finally, resorting to calling anyone who calls you out "hostile" is just silly and hypocritical, dude. No one is calling you names, they're just trying to discuss the topics at hand and the way you involve yourself in them.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:14 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Vexer wrote:
Well I didn't say anything that extreme on this particular thread recently(I reserve that kind of hate for films that truly deserve it, like Twilight and Your Highness), so I don't really see where all this hostility is coming from? :? Most of the time I avoid commenting on films everyone loves that I don't like.

Also whether one has "bad taste" in films is strictly a matter of opinion, not a fact. I could just as easily say that you have bad taste in films and that your opinion is garbage, but I don't.


There's no hostility meant. I'm just pointing out what I see as something of a contradiction. I don't buy for a second that most of the time you avoid commenting on films people love, however. I think there's years of evidence that would say otherwise all over this forum. That's not a good or bad thing, it's just a thing.

And bad taste being a matter of opinion is exactly the point. Virutally everything involving what we think about movies is a matter of opinion, so it can't just be ok for someone contrarian to say things suck. Sometimes people should be willing to say the contrarian opinion is awful, which I think is much rarer than you giving your contrarian opinion. The way I see it, coming into a thread and bashing a movie people are lovingly talking about IS telling them they have bad taste, especially when the bashing is all that's offered up. It's obviously not as direct as saying it outright, but it functions the same.

I'll also point out that someone having bad (or good) taste and their opinion being garbage don't go hand in hand. How you explain that opinion is a much better barometer of how worthy an opinion is than just the opinion itself.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:27 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3347
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Shade2 wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
Isn't there a point where "contrarian" stops being meaningful and the person in question just has bad taste? I mean, good lord, people are so quick to defend someone's right to an opinion that they forget that other people are also allowed to think the opinion in question is just plain shit. Sure, everyone can think what they want, but that also means I'm allowed to think your opinion sucks. People might call me an asshole if I come into a thread and say something like, "Vexer's opinion about Film X sucks. I find no value in it whatsoever." But is that really all that different from him coming into a thread where people are discussing how much they love something and saying something like, "Movie Y is a vile piece of shit and I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than watch it again"?


Amen and amen.

Vexer wrote:
Also whether one has "bad taste" in films is strictly a matter of opinion, not a fact. I could just as easily say that you have bad taste in films and that your opinion is garbage, but I don't.


Yes, you do. Maybe not Petey specifically in this case, but that's what you do when you stop by a thread to not address the topic but rather just slam someone's opinion without substance, which is often your MO. As I've said repeatedly: if you want to tear down a film with reasons and arguments, by all means, that's the whole point of the forum. But just scoffing adds nothing.

And yes, you can absolutely hold any opinion you want, but some opinions are wrong. The fact that a certain opinion can be held doesn't make it right or defenseable or worthy of consideration.

Finally, resorting to calling anyone who calls you out "hostile" is just silly and hypocritical, dude. No one is calling you names, they're just trying to discuss the topics at hand and the way you involve yourself in them.

Why is it that almost every post you make is about me in some way? I almost never see you talk about anything film related, don't you have anything else to say? :?

I'm not "tearing down" or "scoffing" at anyone or anything here, just posting my opinions, i'm sorry if that offends you so much :roll: You just seem to have a problem with me no matter what I say, so i've given up on trying to reason with you.

Claiming an opinion is "wrong" just because you disagree with it is pretty egotistical if you ask me :roll:, liek there are certain films that people are not allowed to like or hate because it's "wrong". Whose to say which person's opinion about films is truly right or wrong? I could just as easily claim every single opinion you have about movies is wrong, but I don't do that.

Calling me out for what? Not sharing a popular opinion? I really don't see how i've done anything wrong here. :?

I'm calling you out for attacking me for no reason over almost everything I say and not actually contributing much of anything else. I can't remember the last time you made a post that wasn't about me in some way. You just seem to enjoy going after me when my opinion dosen't align with yours.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:27 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15657 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688 ... 783  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Syd Henderson and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr