Oh, absolutely. I just chimed in because I figured that if I didn't, he would've for me.

Here's the problem. With my shot argument, I could not only name many shots of Hugo I felt were bland, but also many specific shots of Tintin I thought were awesome. My argument is specific as it gets. I'd like to see you draw on specifics for tone, emotional connection, and storytelling. Exactly what specifically is inarguably superior about Hugo in those regards? To me, it sounds like you're describing straight feelings as opposed to observations.



Dude, the opening shot isn't real. I don't know how else to put it, except that your comment here seems to be a distraction from that fact.



Because it's illogical to make a sequel to a series of three films?

Where were the specifics? Did I miss them?



I never said it's superiority was inarguable.



My feelings come from observation. I don't feel a need to prove anything to you.



No image from any Pixar film is real. I'm not claiming the opening shot was real. You are making statements and then saying that anything contrary "ain't even an argument."



Because if Hugo is a stupid cliche and Scorsese giving up his gift, then Crystal Skull is Spielberg making a simple cash-grab film that rapes the idea of the rest of the films and shits all over his gift.

But that is the claim I'm making for Tintin. I'd like to see Scorsese direct a scene as visually thrilling as the ship in Tintin (which isn't even among Tintin's best scenes). The kid on a separate platform from the villains; that's cool, badass filmmaking that has no equal in Hugo. There's also nothing in Hugo as advanced as that.



Then why even argue your points in the first place? Here's an honest question: what's your agenda? I know I have one beyond the mere defense of an opinion. What's yours?



Just hold on a second, and answer me this: do you not see the point of view that says...it's okay to make a fantasy, and it's okay to make a paean to a silent director, but that trying to combine both is silly? Present an argument that runs contradictory to that, and you'll have a point. If you don't feel the need to prove your point in that regard, then you have no point to prove. All I want to know is, why does the atmosphere have to be so fantastical? That's all.

Oh, we all get that, and so it must be asked: why do you occasionally pretend to be open to debate when you're really not? If it's inarguable...why argue it? Moreso, why should you have to argue it?

Well, because it isn't. My opinion is that Tintin is not a better film than Hugo. I think that. But I know that Tintin is not inarguably better.



And you're accusing me of making feelings-based, unsubstantiated claims about the film?



Again, everyone here knows you have an agenda. I have none. I'm here to try to discuss movies in ways that matter to me. I'm not out to be a dick or talk down to people. I'm not here to scream at everyone that they're wrong and that my opinion is perfect.



No, I don't see that point. If you'd like to limit the range of cinematic art, that's your choice. Do I think Scorsese nailed the balance between the two? Not quite. But at least he tried to do something interesting, unlike Spielberg since he started working on Indy 4: Straight Outta Nuketown.



That's bullshit all the way. Yet again, you're creating a phantom argument. You haven't proven that it's silly to combine the two, and therefore no one is obliged to disprove it.

Gentlemen, as a moderator, I want to say that I think this argument has gone far enough. My own thoughts on the matter are on the previous pages if anyone should want to see them, but at this point we've gone so far beyond the "death of film" that I think we should stop.

I'm sure we'll all meet to argue again another day, but for now let's back off and go watch (respectively) some Anthony Mann films and Z

I was this short of saying *yawn* so thank you Kunz. Any post after this one that does not immediately reply to Berard's ReelThought can consider themselves enemy of the state.

Looks like my post got deleted. What I said was:

This entire discussion has been in line with JB's article, since it stemmed from Hugo and 3D.

And

Box office is proof enough for me that Hugo has flopped.

I agree that the discussion should end now, but any mod who deletes this harmless post is way out of line. Let it go.

So yeah... the death of film... technicalities aside (it isn't the death of film) where does cinema go from here? If punters are still going to pay over the odds for a shittier product that costs less to make, does this mean film makers won't bother trying to make anything worth seeing?

This list explains alot:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-suck.html

It really is the international language

I guarantee that people will read this and then STILL prattle on about how great a thing 3D is for cinema. Sometimes, I wonder if I can punch myself in the face hard enough to just forget everything.

We're in the same camp.