|
MadMattH posted:You can go ahead and say that if you want, but you'd still be wrong. Anyone want to pitch in and buy this porpoise the most ironic red text?
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
MadMattH posted:You can go ahead and say that if you want, but you'd still be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
the loving opera thing is horrible
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Have at it man, it's your money. I really like that I absolutely must like(and apparently for the exact same reasons)the same movies as you or you feel the need to retaliate in some manner. Sorry my opinions differ from this apparently hive mind. I'm sure if I were to post any of my favorite movies (which I do not consider perfect), you guys would have a fine old time picking them apart too. But, unlike you guys, I wouldn't care in the least and it wouldn't change if I liked it or not. Here's one for you to have fun with: I like the movie Dune, not for it's basis in reality, not for the acting, but I really like the sets. Is that bad and terrible? Should I feel bad about it because you tell me so? Not likely to happen but opinion away. EDIT: Nevermind, Dune isn't on streaming anymore. Just go with maybe Pulp Fiction or something. MadMattH fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:I really like that I absolutely must like(and apparently for the exact same reasons)the same movies as you or you feel the need to retaliate in some manner. beep boop what is a conversation
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:I'm sure if I were to post any of my favorite movies (which I do not consider perfect), you guys would have a fine old time picking them apart too. But, unlike you guys, I wouldn't care in the least and it wouldn't change if I liked it or not. Again, this is just your projection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:beep boop what is a conversation Yes, because all conversations immediately go into personal insult because a guy disagrees with the majority of the group. That is totally a conversation. Anyway, I really liked A Fantastic Fear of Everything which is on Netflix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Again, this is just your projection. Sure, sure man. Nobody ever had anything to say about my opinion about a movie they liked. It was all me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:I'm sure if I were to post any of my favorite movies (which I do not consider perfect), you guys would have a fine old time picking them apart too. But, unlike you guys, I wouldn't care in the least and it wouldn't change if I liked it or not. I'm not tearing apart your opinions, I'm pointing out your lack of ability to explain your opinions, and your odd debate skills. Seriously, what are some of your favorite movies, and why? I haven't seen Dune because the major opinion is that it's terrible, and that one of my favorite directors has disowned it and removed his name from it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I haven't seen Dune because the major opinion is that it's terrible, and that one of my favorite directors has disowned it and removed his name from it. Dune's alright.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
I thought Lynch just disowned the TV cut which made it 2x as long. I think it's a good movie with some awesome visuals and a real sense of earnestness. Great cast too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I'm not tearing apart your opinions, I'm pointing out your lack of ability to explain your opinions, and your odd debate skills. So I had a lot of problems with the movie. I wasn't aware we were debating anything, nor do I feel as if I need to explain every issue I have with a particular movie in any way that is absolutely crystal clear to a bunch of hostile people who don't want to know anyway. I was just stating my opinion and why I didn't like that particular film., not trying to write some essay or thesis about it. If you look at my original statement, it wasn't hostile to anyone but immediately was jumped on because it happened to disagree with some other guys. I just posted 3 movies I liked, if you guys want some more, I'll have to look and see what is on Netflix. Like I said I only like Dune the movie for the sets, maybe some of the direction. David Lynch only removed his name from the extended syndication release not the original film, and it was because they made an extended cut version without his input after making him cut his original to 1.5 hours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:I wasn't aware we were debating anything, nor do I feel as if I need to explain every issue I have with a particular movie in any way that is absolutely crystal clear to a bunch of hostile people who don't want to know anyway. Yeah, why attempt to discuss something on, you know, a film discussion forum?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:Sure, sure man. Nobody ever had anything to say about my opinion about a movie they liked. It was all me. No, I mean the part where you... MadMattH posted:I really like that I absolutely must like(and apparently for the exact same reasons)the same movies as you or you feel the need to retaliate in some manner. Sorry my opinions differ from this apparently hive mind. Four or five people on a forum aren't a hivemind, that's just three people agreeing to a relative extent. Your projection is making this out to be far more pernicious than it actually is. quote:I'm sure if I were to post any of my favorite movies (which I do not consider perfect), you guys would have a fine old time picking them apart too. But, unlike you guys, I wouldn't care in the least and it wouldn't change if I liked it or not. This is textbook projection. You extrapolated this from people disagreeing with you on Snowpiercer. Furthermore, you're trying to make this about their supposed intentional disingenuousness in believing the things they like don't have flaws. Nobody thinks what they like don't have flaws; they're disagreeing with you on your summary conclusion of a work's quality. This is a misdirection. quote:Here's one for you to have fun with: More misdirection: We are trying to make you 'feel bad.' We don't actually believe that you're wrong about things you find to be of poor quality with Snowpiercer, we're just being uber-contrarian for giggles. I haven't seen Dune, but if it's comparable at all to Snowpiercer I don't trust any opinion you have on it, positive or negative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Yeah, why attempt to discuss something on, you know, a film discussion forum? There was no attempt at discussion. I made a statement about a movie and immediately people are all hostile about it, which doesn't invite any sort of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
No, I'm pretty sure he disowned every version because of studio interference.quote:David Lynch (13 January 2006) : "Dune I didn't have final cut on. It's the only film I've made where I didn't have, I didn't technically have final cut on The Elephant Man (1980) but Mel Brooks gave it to me, and on Dune (1984) the film, I started selling out even in the script phase knowing I didn't have final cut, and I sold out, so it was a slow dying- the-death and a terrible terrible experience. I don't know how it happened, I trusted that it would work out but it was very naive and, the wrong move. In those days the maximum length they figured I could have is two hours and seventeen minutes, and that's what the film is, so they wouldn't lose a screening a day, so once again it's money talking and not for the film at all and so it was like compacted and it hurt it, it hurt it. There is no other version. There's more stuff, but even that is putrefied." quote:David Lynch has said he considers this film the only real failure of his career. To this day, he refuses to talk about the production in great detail, and has refused numerous offers to work on a special edition DVD. Lynch claims revisiting the film would be too painful an experience to endure. quote:Upon completion, the rough cut of Dune without post-production effects ran over four hours long, but Lynch's intended cut of the film (as reflected in the 7th and final draft of the script) was almost three hours long. I'm not against watching it, as it's the only Lynch movie I've never seen, I've just always figured to watch something else. MadMattH posted:Angry words I was just legitimately trying to find out what movies you like, dude. It's this weird thing called perspective. And why do you need to check Netflix to know what some of your favorite movies are? Just name a few. Also, it's okay to like a movie, or aspects of a movie for whatever reason. The problem in this scenario is that you have really bizarre opinions and make really weird attempts to argue them without explaining them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:No, I mean the part where you... Sure man, like I said, it's all me. And as for Dune, I know it's not for everybody, much like Snowpiercer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:38
|
|
MadMattH posted:There was no attempt at discussion. I made a statement about a movie and immediately people are all hostile about it, which doesn't invite any sort of discussion. No, you were disagreed with, and then you got hostile when people called your justifications insufficient.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:There was no attempt at discussion. I made a statement about a movie and immediately people are all hostile about it, which doesn't invite any sort of discussion. I'd recommend taking a look at the Snowpiercer thread. Not for reasons to like the movie, there's a lot of people in there who don't, but for an actual discussion on a film. This isn't Games or TVIV. Outside of GenChat (and even in, probably) we're gonna hold your feet to the fire if you just come in with some dumb opinions and no attempt to flesh them out. This: MadMattH posted:For what it is, Snowpeircer is ok I guess, but it was just too far fetched as a premise to be engaging. I could see it working as something like a failing colonization attempt that couldn't be resupplied or something, but everybody left on the planet on a train? The train just doesn't seem that plausible as a solution to the problem set forth and since it's not, it kind of removes you from whatever motivation the characters have. is like saying, "Why doesn't the bad guy just shoot James Bond instead of talking to him!" weekly font fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
So why do you think that science fiction needs to be realistic or plausible? And if it's not realistic then it's a space opera instead? These are really weird definitions that I haven't seen anyone else use, and it seems like a lot of your dislike for a movie is based on it not fulfilling these arbitrary requirements, rather than the movie itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I just started Bates Motel and it's pretty great. It's a great conceit to drop a developing serial killer into a setting with tons of weird crime already going on. Vera Farmiga does a great job playing a narcissist/borderline personality type in a very believable and pretty true-to-life way, for whatever that's worth. Bates Motel is incredible and season 2 just kept getting better. So yes. It's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Those post have me curious what makes a movie science fiction other than the plot device.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:No, I'm pretty sure he disowned every version because of studio interference. I need to see if the movie is still on there or not, they take them off all the time and add new ones. Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:So why do you think that science fiction needs to be realistic or plausible? And if it's not realistic then it's a space opera instead? These are really weird definitions that I haven't seen anyone else use, and it seems like a lot of your dislike for a movie is based on it not fulfilling these arbitrary requirements, rather than the movie itself. It's not arbitrary. I just feel that people in a movie reality should at least act in ways consistent with that movie reality. This doesn't happen in Snowpiercer. mr. stefan posted:No, you were disagreed with, and then you got hostile when people called your justifications insufficient. How is this not considered to be hostile? At this point I had 2 posts about the movie. TychoCelchuuu posted:Snowpiercer is pretty great and anyone who is bothered by the implausibility is living an impoverished life because the part of their brain that suspends disbelief withered and died at some point while they choked on a piece of food or strangled themselves while jerking off or something. On the topic of Snowpiercer here's a short fun extremely spoiler filled video about one of the dozens of things that it does well:
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Those post have me curious what makes a movie science fiction other than the plot device. An irreducible element. Without time travel, Back To The Future is nonsensical. Jurassic Park doesn't just use dinosaurs as a gewgaw, it's actually saying something about dinos and why they capture our imagination. On the other hand, there is no reason at all that Outland is set in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:How is this not considered to be hostile? At this point I had 2 posts about the movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:I guess if you're sex-negative or something then you might interpret "a part of your brain died because you strangled yourself while jerking off" as hostile, but I don't shame people for their kinks. There's nothing wrong with autoerotic asphyxiation. Even if I had been hostile though, it doesn't count because [insert convoluted explanation about how the genre of my post was actually something different and anything in this genre has special qualities which are inherently non-hostile even if they appear hostile]. See still hostile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Alright time to give up on the guy who can't engage in discussion beyond IT WAS GOOD/IT WAS BAD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Those post have me curious what makes a movie science fiction other than the plot device. I was thinking about that and couldn't come up with a strict definition, but all of the things I consider as science fiction contain things that aren't scientifically realistic or plausible. That's why I thought the reasoning for Snowpiercer was so weird. Like, if that stuff could actually happen then it would just be science, not science fiction. A lot of SF is in space, but I don't consider Gravity as SF because it's too plausible, even though it's not entirely scientifically accurate. I don't know, there's probably some things I would consider science fiction that are pretty realistic, but I can't think of them or pin down a really strict definition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:On the other hand, there is no reason at all that Outland is set in the future. This is exactly how I feel about The Rover.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:I was thinking about that and couldn't come up with a strict definition, but all of the things I consider as science fiction contain things that aren't scientifically realistic or plausible. That's why I thought the reasoning for Snowpiercer was so weird. Like, if that stuff could actually happen then it would just be science, not science fiction. A lot of SF is in space, but I don't consider Gravity as SF because it's too plausible, even though it's not entirely scientifically accurate. I don't know if there is a strict definition, and it is very clear that mine might be more strict than some others. I have always thought actual science fiction was supposed to have some basis in science and draw that idea out into a possible end point. I don't know that there has ever been a movie that has done that, but there are certainly at least some writers that do try it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:So why do you think that science fiction needs to be realistic or plausible? And if it's not realistic then it's a space opera instead? These are really weird definitions that I haven't seen anyone else use, and it seems like a lot of your dislike for a movie is based on it not fulfilling these arbitrary requirements, rather than the movie itself. I've encountered this before in the Doctor Who thread. Someone was saying that Doctor Who, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator, Independence day etc are all fantasy rather than sci fi because the science isn't plausible. So a bizarre attitude but it's not just him. Unless that was the same dude. It must be weird to live in a world where there have only ever been three or four sci-fi movies made in the history of film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
I don't think it's a coincidence that at this moment I can hear two obese coworkers in the office hallway arguing about what constitutes "adult contemporary" music.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Those post have me curious what makes a movie science fiction other than the plot device. (I say "almost" entirely rather than entirely because I think I can imagine some reasons for people to argue about this, viz. they're loving pedantic idiots who can't enjoy things outside a context in which the enjoyment is sanctioned by some imagined set of rules, a set of rules they can use to criticize opinions they disagree with by employing the rules arbitrarily. We've seen this in this thread lately!) As it stands I think it's safe to say that anything with robots or aliens or time travel or an apocalypse that isn't just Jesus coming back and rapturing everyone is science fiction. Anything beyond that is probably not worth worrying about - it's either an edge case or "I know it when I see it." Nothing much fruitful can come of those sorts of arguments, I think. marktheando posted:It must be weird to live in a world where there have only ever been three or four sci-fi movies made in the history of film. MadMattH posted:I don't know if there is a strict definition, and it is very clear that mine might be more strict than some others. I have always thought actual science fiction was supposed to have some basis in science and draw that idea out into a possible end point. I don't know that there has ever been a movie that has done that, but there are certainly at least some writers that do try it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:This is exactly how I feel about The Rover. There's totally a reason dude: Mad Max 1. That movie is barely set in the future as well. It's actual setting is the rear end-end of Western Civilization. I didn't mind the homage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
It's why characters like Roman in Party Down exist, to differentiate between "hard sci-fi" and "fantasy bullshit."
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I've encountered this before in the Doctor Who thread. Someone was saying that Doctor Who, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator, Independence day etc are all fantasy rather than sci fi because the science isn't plausible. So a bizarre attitude but it's not just him. Not me, I haven't watched Dr. Who since I was a kid. It's not that they don't make movies that are called science fiction, it's that the ones they do make are more fantasy than any possible reality. this really started in the 50's when they started making b-movie 'science fiction' and got monsters and supernatural stuff in the mix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:Not me, I haven't watched Dr. Who since I was a kid. Nobody gives a poo poo and if your dumb genre definitions are limiting your enjoyment of films you are doing something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:I don't think there's any single answer to this question. Genre distinctions aren't based on laws carved in stone by God 100 years ago - "science fiction" and other categories are just vague ways to pick out things with various things in common. (The philosopher Wittgenstein dubbed this concept "family resemblance" - science fiction movies all share some kind of family resemblance, for instance, but there's not some magical criterion or set of criteria that tell you for sure when something is or isn't science fiction.) Why anyone would ever argue about whether something is or isn't an example of a genre or use the fact that a movie does or doesn't belong to a genre as evidence of whether it's a good movie is almost entirely beyond me. Jesus coming back would also not be science fiction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Manky posted:It's why characters like Roman in Party Down exist, to differentiate between "hard sci-fi" and "fantasy bullshit." Christ that show was good. It was so great, all the cast members got better jobs and the show died  It was too beautiful for this world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
weekly font posted:Nobody gives a poo poo and if your dumb genre definitions are limiting your enjoyment of films you are doing something wrong. My genre definition has nothing to do with if I like a movie or not, like I said I like Dune which is more fantasy that science fiction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:19
|
|