|
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur |
On July 08 2013 21:23 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 21:13 GolemMadness wrote:On July 08 2013 21:02 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 20:45 GolemMadness wrote:
Probably shouldn't tell someone that they need a dictionary if you can't spell the word. Art is entirely about how you experience it. Talking about movies being objectively better or worse is ridiculous. I've studied film and watch a lot of movies. Does this make my opinion more valid on this topic? Ok, I made a spelling mistake in my non native language, sorry about that, mind telling me what your question was about now ? After that, in order, maybe, it's arguable ; certainly not, what the hell are critics and historian of art doing in your opinion ? ; and yes to your question. What are they doing? They're being critics and historians of art. I never said that you can't discuss or criticize it; and I'm sure that those who do that sort of thing professionally know plenty about themes the director's trying to convey, image systems, history, etc. However, none of that makes a movie objectively better. Nah, totally not, that would be ridiculous. I take that objectively, Britney Spears makes music as good as Beethoven, Dan Brown writes books as good as Proust's, and me drawing a square on a blank paper is the same thing as Les demoiselles d'Avignon. Your position is ridiculous, but hey, it's the classic postmodern bullshit, so believe what you want.
First of all, what exactly makes Beethoven objectively better than Britney Spears? Being superior in the technical aspects of making music? How does that matter if the purpose of music is for people to enjoy it? Secondly, all you seem to be able to do is bring up extreme examples. Ok, how about this: if movies can be judged objectively, please sort this list of movies from objectively best to objectively worst:
Citizen Kane
The Dark Knight
Seven Samurai
Stalker
Titanic
The Shawshank Redemption
The Apartment
The Matrix
Oh, you can't? Maybe because talking about movies being objectively good or bad is completely worthless, and bringing up some of the most highly revered movies vs someone shooting a 5 second clip of a wall with their cell phone is completely irrelevant.
|
If you read the whole discussion maybe you'd see how you vastly misunderstand what I mean, but I'm not sure, subtlety doesn't seem to be your strong suit. And yes, I bring extreme example because they show that your position doesn't make sense, that does seem to make you very angry.
Also The Shawshank Redemption is an awful movie, so that's a good beginning for the bottom of the list 
|
On July 09 2013 08:42 corumjhaelen wrote:If you read the whole discussion maybe you'd see how you vastly misunderstand what I mean, but I'm not sure, subtlety doesn't seem to be your strong suit. And yes, I bring extreme example because they show that your position doesn't make sense, that does seem to make you very angry. Also The Shawshank Redemption is an awful movie, so that's a good beginning for the bottom of the list
So basically:
You're unable to refute my argument in any way, and instead insult me and talk about me being angry
In place of an argument, you bring out the "Oh, you just don't understand what's going on"
You can't rank those movies, despite your claims that movies can be judged objectively
Some good discussion you bring to the table here!
|
On July 09 2013 08:44 GolemMadness wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 08:42 corumjhaelen wrote:If you read the whole discussion maybe you'd see how you vastly misunderstand what I mean, but I'm not sure, subtlety doesn't seem to be your strong suit. And yes, I bring extreme example because they show that your position doesn't make sense, that does seem to make you very angry. Also The Shawshank Redemption is an awful movie, so that's a good beginning for the bottom of the list So basically: You're unable to refute my argument in any way, and instead insult me and talk about me being angry In place of an argument, you bring out the "Oh, you just don't understand what's going on" You can't rank those movies, despite your claims that movies can be judged objectively Some good discussion you bring to the table here!
No I'm saying I have already answered exactly what you're saying. Since you cannot seem to find out yourself, here is an excerpt of my post. Maybe after that you'll take the time to read everything and to stop pulling strawmen.
I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree.
What was I saying again ? Oh yes, strawman.
Edit : also you're the one unable to answer to my argument apart from saying "oh but your examples are extreme". Yes, and how does that invalidate them ?
|
On July 09 2013 08:47 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 08:44 GolemMadness wrote:On July 09 2013 08:42 corumjhaelen wrote:If you read the whole discussion maybe you'd see how you vastly misunderstand what I mean, but I'm not sure, subtlety doesn't seem to be your strong suit. And yes, I bring extreme example because they show that your position doesn't make sense, that does seem to make you very angry. Also The Shawshank Redemption is an awful movie, so that's a good beginning for the bottom of the list So basically: You're unable to refute my argument in any way, and instead insult me and talk about me being angry In place of an argument, you bring out the "Oh, you just don't understand what's going on" You can't rank those movies, despite your claims that movies can be judged objectively Some good discussion you bring to the table here! No I'm saying I have already answered exactly what you're saying. Since you cannot seem to find out yourself, here is an excerpt of my post. Maybe after that you'll take the time to read everything and to stop pulling strawmen. Show nested quote +I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree. What was I saying again ? Oh yes, strawman. Edit : also you're the one unable to answer to my argument apart from saying "oh but your examples are extreme". Yes, and how does that invalidate them ?
Since you cannot seem to find out yourself, here is an excerpt of my post:
"First of all, what exactly makes Beethoven objectively better than Britney Spears? Being superior in the technical aspects of making music? How does that matter if the purpose of music is for people to enjoy it?"
Ok, so if you can't judge movies on a scale from 1-100, how can you judge them? What exactly makes a movie objectively better or worse than any other?
|
On July 09 2013 08:54 GolemMadness wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 08:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 08:44 GolemMadness wrote:On July 09 2013 08:42 corumjhaelen wrote:If you read the whole discussion maybe you'd see how you vastly misunderstand what I mean, but I'm not sure, subtlety doesn't seem to be your strong suit. And yes, I bring extreme example because they show that your position doesn't make sense, that does seem to make you very angry. Also The Shawshank Redemption is an awful movie, so that's a good beginning for the bottom of the list So basically: You're unable to refute my argument in any way, and instead insult me and talk about me being angry In place of an argument, you bring out the "Oh, you just don't understand what's going on" You can't rank those movies, despite your claims that movies can be judged objectively Some good discussion you bring to the table here! No I'm saying I have already answered exactly what you're saying. Since you cannot seem to find out yourself, here is an excerpt of my post. Maybe after that you'll take the time to read everything and to stop pulling strawmen. I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree. What was I saying again ? Oh yes, strawman. Edit : also you're the one unable to answer to my argument apart from saying "oh but your examples are extreme". Yes, and how does that invalidate them ? Since you cannot seem to find out yourself, here is an excerpt of my post: "First of all, what exactly makes Beethoven objectively better than Britney Spears? Being superior in the technical aspects of making music? How does that matter if the purpose of music is for people to enjoy it?" Ok, so if you can't judge movies on a scale from 1-100, how can you judge them? What exactly makes a movie objectively better or worse than any other?
Ok so I take it that you do hold Britney Spears and Beethoven in the same regard, perfect. As for your question, the first one is a yes, among other thing, and for the second here is a clue : it is very possible, as strange as it may be, that the purpose of music might not only be to be enjoyed.
For the rest, since you can't be bothered to read what I've already written, I can't be bothered to say the same thing over and over either just for you, you're really not that interesting.
Have a good day.
|
I talked with corumjhaelen in PM's and it looks like most all of his argument stems from his personal opinion and not some kind of fact based science in the matter. He values culture above most things, and he will not sway from his opinion. He is not a source of knowledge for whether or not somebody likes a movie or if they should like a movie, so don't argue with him about that. He does have a strong concept of critiquing a movie, but that is something very different in my opinion (and many other peoples opinions).
|
On July 09 2013 09:03 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I talked with corumjhaelen in PM's and it looks like most all of his argument stems from his personal opinion and not some kind of fact based science in the matter. He values culture above most things, and he will not sway from his opinion. He is not a source of knowledge for whether or not somebody likes a movie or if they should like a movie, so don't argue with him about that. He does have a strong concept of critiquing a movie, but that is something very different in my opinion (and many other peoples opinions).
I value culture highly too and desire others to as well which is way I don't understand the hostility which started all of this. Doesn't he want more people interested in cinema generally? It's always better to be open and more inviting. People are more receptive to new things that way. Browbeating them won't cause anyone to search out Stan Brakhage par exemple. 
|
On July 09 2013 08:59 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 08:54 GolemMadness wrote:On July 09 2013 08:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 08:44 GolemMadness wrote:On July 09 2013 08:42 corumjhaelen wrote:If you read the whole discussion maybe you'd see how you vastly misunderstand what I mean, but I'm not sure, subtlety doesn't seem to be your strong suit. And yes, I bring extreme example because they show that your position doesn't make sense, that does seem to make you very angry. Also The Shawshank Redemption is an awful movie, so that's a good beginning for the bottom of the list So basically: You're unable to refute my argument in any way, and instead insult me and talk about me being angry In place of an argument, you bring out the "Oh, you just don't understand what's going on" You can't rank those movies, despite your claims that movies can be judged objectively Some good discussion you bring to the table here! No I'm saying I have already answered exactly what you're saying. Since you cannot seem to find out yourself, here is an excerpt of my post. Maybe after that you'll take the time to read everything and to stop pulling strawmen. I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree. What was I saying again ? Oh yes, strawman. Edit : also you're the one unable to answer to my argument apart from saying "oh but your examples are extreme". Yes, and how does that invalidate them ? Since you cannot seem to find out yourself, here is an excerpt of my post: "First of all, what exactly makes Beethoven objectively better than Britney Spears? Being superior in the technical aspects of making music? How does that matter if the purpose of music is for people to enjoy it?" Ok, so if you can't judge movies on a scale from 1-100, how can you judge them? What exactly makes a movie objectively better or worse than any other? Ok so I take it that you do hold Britney Spears and Beethoven in the same regard, perfect. As for your question, the first one is a yes, among other thing, and for the second here is a clue : it is very possible, as strange as it may be, that the purpose of music might not only be to be enjoyed. For the rest, since you can't be bothered to read what I've already written, I can't be bothered to say the same thing over and over either just for you, you're really not that interesting. Have a good day.
It's funny that you keep trying to insult me, yet you can't tell the difference between me saying that neither Beethoven nor Britney Spears are objectively better or worse than the other and me having a personal opinion on which is better. Once again, you respond with absolutely no argument. If you can't be bothered to explain anything, then why are you responding? What a waste of time.
|
Can we please stop with this mindless drivel? Debating the merits of art on a forum is unlikely to lead to constructive discussion, and you two have clearly gone way off the path. I'm all for chewing the fat over the relevancy of film as an artistic medium and how it affects us, but you two are going ad hominem ad nauseum.
|
Canada5565 Posts
|
On July 09 2013 09:28 Chytilova wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 09:03 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I talked with corumjhaelen in PM's and it looks like most all of his argument stems from his personal opinion and not some kind of fact based science in the matter. He values culture above most things, and he will not sway from his opinion. He is not a source of knowledge for whether or not somebody likes a movie or if they should like a movie, so don't argue with him about that. He does have a strong concept of critiquing a movie, but that is something very different in my opinion (and many other peoples opinions). I value culture highly too and desire others to as well which is way I don't understand the hostility which started all of this. Doesn't he want more people interested in cinema generally? It's always better to be open and more inviting. People are more receptive to new things that way. Browbeating them won't cause anyone to search out Stan Brakhage par exemple.
I value culture as well, however I dont value it above say, personal enjoyment. If I enjoy mindless action flicks I dont need somebody judging me or talking down to me because of it. If you want somebody to search out Stan Brakhage then spark an interest for them so that they enjoy it instead of trying to make them seem like inferior uncultured swine.
|
i am completely bamboozled that this was caused by the guy with the movie elitist holier than thou attitude. is such a thing even possible?
anyways back to what this thread is supposed to be about.
iron man 3 - 6/10 - fell asleep half way watched the rest the next day
fast and furious 6 - 6/10 - same as above
new world (korean movie) - 8/10 - korea has a knack for churning out good gangster films. if you liked the departed/infernal affairs you should enjoy this. its basically the same idea.
the berlin file - 7/10 - korean equivalent of the bourne series. decent watch.
defiance - 7/10 - daniel craig is cool.
olympus has fallen - 3/10 - i don't even think i finished the movie.
dead man down - 5/10 - had potential but could have done without the female lead and lame plot devices
|
....shut up already and tell us what MOVIES YOU HAVE WATCHED RECENTLY...
As for me,
I've recently watched
IP Man
Miami Connection
Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid
All of these movies had great entertainment value, I enjoyed each one for very different reason and would highly recommend all of them.
|
I used to be an asshole who watched 5 films per day and criticized people who liked films that aren't "cool" to like. Then I grew up.
|
If people actually read some books before speaking our ignorant minds all the time, we would be dead cause we would be in heaven. wat
|
United Kingdom10017 Posts
On July 09 2013 19:52 Steveling wrote:
If people actually read some books before speaking our ignorant minds all the time, we would be dead cause we would be in heaven. wat
Books? this is a 'movie' (film) thread my friend, get your disgusting vile book talk out of here.
|
On July 09 2013 20:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 19:52 Steveling wrote:
If people actually read some books before speaking our ignorant minds all the time, we would be dead cause we would be in heaven. wat Books? this is a 'movie' (film) thread my friend, get your disgusting vile book talk out of here.
What is the book thing you're talking about? I seen them in movies, but that's about it.
I finished the series and watched the movie finale! Watch Firefly and then finish the story with Serenity. It's sad now that it's over.
|
I can't believe that Fast and Furious series still brings it, Furious 6 were awesome, action throughout the whole movie and the acting and jokes are still awesome like there were back in 1-3.
+ Show Spoiler +I really liked this movie and looking forward to the next one with Jason Statham!
I´ll give it 9/10!
|
Black Adder 10/10. English humor amazes me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iGG5yxC.jpg)
