|
$440m worldwide gross to date on a $200m budget probably means that Tyrese is gloating like a madman.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:I guess I have to explain it to you again. If something doesn't do something it's not meant to do, it's not flawed. Glass hurts your mouth? You think glass sucks because you can't eat it? Then stop doing that. They sell food at the store, eat that instead. Everyone else understands how to correctly use glass. I don't "actually" have to "prove" anything I don't want to, you realize this isn't The People v. Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, right? Although I'm still not sure why your assumption that this movie never attempts XYZ is somehow more valid than my assumption that this movie attempts XYZ and fails. You liked the movie. Great. I bet a lot of people did, also some people didn't and some were mixed. Why this troubles you to the point that you're inventing increasingly strained analogies to try to paint those in the latter two groups as glass-eating imbeciles is something only you can answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Well you have to be a glass eating imbecile because you keep insisting that the filmmakers were attempting something, but you don't have any evidence that they were. You're now just saying "prove that they weren't!", and why should I? You're the one making the claim. If I watch a film and it doesn't have a [whatever it is you want], there's no reason to assume they just accidentally forgot to put one of those in there. If they'd wanted to do that, they'd have done it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
That’s right. They made an incoherent movie on purpose and therefore it is good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Pretty much. If this was in french and had a bunch of stuttery jump cuts in a cafe scene people would be calling it a masterpiece. There is only a plot so much as that you need someone to say something that doesn't make sense, so as to lead into the next non-sequitur action scene. The rock said his Samoan bush mechanic brother could fix a dialysis machine, so they went there got followed and had a big fight. They even had the dedicated woman character say all the guns had computers in she could hack, that way the tribe didn't get shot when they started hitting the robot people with clubs. It's genius. Crank did the exact same thing. Someone stole his heart so he got given an electric one so he had to rub himself to get more static electricity. He killed someone's body falling out of a helicopter so they made him into a head in a jar. I don't know how you can't follow it, it's simple. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
You seem to be taking the mild complaints about this movie pretty harshly, so I'd like to inform you that criticisms of the things you like aren't criticisms of you personally. Honest question: If the people who find some elements of this movie lacking are wrong because the movie is meant to be that way, does this mean that every movie is criticism-proof because hey, we were wrong for expecting something (i.e. interesting characters, a good story, funny jokes) that wasn't in the movie?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
It means that this movie is supposed to be an action comedy with: fun interplay between the two leads, (often integrated into the action itself), and over the top action and fights. Maybe a serviceable story too. That's about it, and it does those things very well and is very entertaining for those that wanted those things. Anyone expecting more than that or something different, well that's on them. If you want to critique the technical merits of the film within its parameters, that's valid, but you should also find something better to do than run a very un-cerebral action blockbuster through that film critique lens FWIW the action is not the best staging/editing ever but still pretty good and always coherent and nicely done, and as I said, actually works well in service of the characters too quote:(i.e. interesting characters, a good story, funny jokes) These are pretty nebulous concepts and very objective things. of course you can comment on them as criticism of a movie but saying this movie should have been something else or something more is dumb Wandle Cax fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Aug 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 08:49
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Honest question: If the people who find some elements of this movie lacking are wrong because the movie is meant to be that way, does this mean that every movie is criticism-proof because hey, we were wrong for expecting something (i.e. interesting characters, a good story, funny jokes) that wasn't in the movie? Sounds like you can't distinguish between filmmakers that didn't do something you want (this film), with filmmakers that did try to do that, but failed at it. (The Room, anything by Neil Breen).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
That actually clears things up tremendously. If you personally like a film it means the filmmakers accomplished everything they set out to, nothing more nothing less, and if you personally don't like a film then it's fair game for everyone else to say that they think the filmmakers missed the mark. It was staring me right in the face this whole time!  Wandle Cax posted:Anyone expecting more than that or something different, well that's on them. If you want to critique the technical merits of the film within its parameters, that's valid, but you should also find something better to do than run a very un-cerebral action blockbuster through that film critique lens Where are you guys getting this idea that people went into this movie expecting Jean-Luc Goddard? Saying the sets looked like sets or the CGI was unimpressive or The Rock is annoying now isn't exactly doctoral candidate level stuff here. Saying a movie should have been better than it was is a perfectly valid criticism of any movie. Plenty of people like big silly action movies but that doesn't mean we have to like every big silly action movie and that we can't recognize their flaws as we perceive them. But then again I remember when the first Transformers movie came out and there were a bunch of weirdos sputtering about "how dare anyone insult this movie, what did you expect loving Shakespeare?!" so I guess some things never change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
it’s funny to mention the room because I have had way more fun every time I’ve watched it than I did during my single viewing of this film
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:That actually clears things up tremendously. If you personally like a film it means the filmmakers accomplished everything they set out to, nothing more nothing less, and if you personally don't like a film then it's fair game for everyone else to say that they think the filmmakers missed the mark. It was staring me right in the face this whole time! You're weird. Have you decided what you want "coherent" to mean yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Why the gently caress wouldn't they want to make a coherent movie? This isn't a David Lynch film. Action movies have this leeway that other movies don't: As long as you a base level of acceptable action sequences nothing else matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
It was coherent though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
Given the amount "incoherent" has been thrown around, I'm curious what people were confused by. I never felt like I didn't understand what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
I used the word a couple of times as a general characteristic of poor filmmaking and now HorseLoad is obsessing over it for some reason???
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
Well, it's a word with a specific meaning that doesn't seem to apply to the movie, so it's reasonable enough on a movie discussion forum to ask what you mean by it. You've now clarified that it's a generic euphemism for "bad," which is fine, if a bit goofy. But it wasn't obvious from context that you didn't have a specific point to make.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Fair enough. Although the specific point I was making wasn't really about this movie, it was that even "comedy action cartoons" can be bad sometimes, and here's a few reasons why they might be, and that HorseLord was wrong to assert that criticism of this movie isn't valid because people went in expecting Bourne (somehow?). I'm not posting the dictionary definition of "incoherent" or giving specific examples because I'm not interested in debating the finer points of this specific movie, just pointing out that HorseLord is wrong that the people who didn't like it just didn't know what to expect from a movie called Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, as if that's even possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
This argument is incoherent
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
It really looks like neither of you is actually reading what the other person is saying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:It really looks like neither of you is actually reading what the other person is saying. welcome to cd
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 08:09
|
|
