Pet Peeves When Talking About Cinema, Vol. II

[Sven]

Okay, so last July, some may remember that I started a thread that received a bit of attention and caused some contention wherein I outline a few of my pet peeves (and others contributed their own) when talking about movies with others. You can find that thread here:

http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1037

Lately, it seems like spirits around here have been much more mean-spirited and labored than they were even a year ago. More snark, less specificity. Lots of bluster with little substance. Maybe it's just me getting older, newbs getting younger, people growing tired of the Internet (I know I am, but it is very hard to keep myself from using it as a distraction... maybe that's it: maybe I've started thinking of it less as a useful tool and more as a televisionesque time-waster--hmm...). I thought it would be fun/interesting to outline a few more peeves/frustrations, this time many of them will be very specific, as a way of exorcising my growing frustration with flaring internet tempers. I don't know how it logically follows that if I feel it has become too mean around here, contributing obnoxious things will help. Rather bass-ackwards, no?

Still, I'm doing it. Right now. These are not ranked. As always, feel free to contribute.

[Ezee E]

I think the "mean"ness around here could be attributed to five posters or so.

But, that's beyond the list. I look forward to hearing some more.

An annoying trait to me is that people talk about how Hollywood has run out of ideas, but the minute a sequel or reboot is announced, it gets plenty of discussion on the boards, while many others are completely overlooked or ignored.

[Sycophant]

I started something like this the other night, with examples of my peeves. But decided not to post it for fear of just causing problems.

Don't want to post too much in here just yet, for fear of stepping on your toes.

[Sven]

When Somebody Poorly, Incorrectly, or Stupidly Argues A Position That You Share

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/matchcut/robocop-431x300.jpg

I do not like the film Knocked Up. However, I don't dislike it because it is vaguely conservative. There are more people than should be the case (IRL, peeps) who, when the film and my opinion of it have been the subject of conversation, jump to the assumption that the film's moral instruction of Rogen's character is my beef. I have to spend more time than should be the case debunking that, noting that it's not my intention to criticize Apatow's half-assed hurrah for familial values.

Please, if Maltin liked RoboCop because it was "slick, slam-bang action entertainment," do not assume that echoes the extent of my own appreciation. Please.

[Sycophant]

I like Knocked Up, but I toooooootally know where you're coming from there. Amen.

[Sven]

I started something like this the other night, with examples of my peeves. But decided not to post it for fear of just causing problems.

Don't want to post too much in here just yet, for fear of stepping on your toes.

Oh, please feel free, though, when you're ready. One of the reasons I dislike starting threads is because I fear they would be too Sven-centric.

And yeah, the whole "causing problems" thing was a worry, but I think I'm at the point where if a problem is caused, I can easily bow out of here.

[Mara]

I started something like this the other night, with examples of my peeves. But decided not to post it for fear of just causing problems.

Don't want to post too much in here just yet, for fear of stepping on your toes.

Geez, you don't have to be such a jerk about it. Aggressive much. You must be one of those five mean people.

[Amnesiac]

One of the more prominent 'problems' is the needlessly condescending replies and/or mean spirited remarks erupting out of nowhere, or simply from a difference of opinion. Most of these differences could be discussed comfortably, without name calling or ad hominems, but that doesn't always end up being the case. This place doesn't have to be a utopia of perfect manners and civility but sometimes things get a touch out of hand.

Also, sometimes I feel like there is a bit too much superciliousness around here. Sometimes people present their superciliousness in a facetious fashion and they end up coming off as pretty decent and humorous. Other people seem a little more serious about that attitude. And I have my suspicions about certain people who seem to be going out of their way to never rep anyone. Not that this is terribly important, and some people may just not care about that feature, but I sometimes feel like its a subtle expression of spite. :lol:

My two cents. Hopefully not contentious. I should note that these 'problems' do not cripple this forum and I find it to be the best and friendliest of any forum I've come across. Not that I'm a message-board expert or anything but there happen to be some genuinely nice, intelligent people here who are consistently civil and don't constantly dive into any snobbish priggery.

[Sven]

The last paragraph of the first entry brings me to (obvious one):

Thrill-words/-phrases That Mean Nothing/Quote Whoring

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/matchcut/BlueCrushJPGMax.jpg

I don't know what else to call them. Things like "slam-bang," "kickass," "explosive," "high octane," and "ride" variations like "thrill ride," "fun ride," "roller coaster ride," etc. They are terrible wastes of space and whenever I see anything like these in a review, I stop reading. Does that make me snooty? Maybe. But it's the kind of snooty that I don't mind being.

Look at this site. (http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=2661) Your blood will boil. Note: if you're worried about boiled blood, do not look at this site.

[Qrazy]

High Octane never gets old for me. All the other quote whoring however was born old and should presumably die old rather soon.

[D_Davis]

This thread is wack-a-licious, packing a powerful one-two punch of personal pet peeves.

[Mara]

For awhile, in the mid-nineties, it seemed like the nonsense word that critics used to praise action films was "kinetic." Why not just say, "stuff moves" and get it over with?

[Sven]

This thread is wack-a-licious, packing a powerful one-two punch of personal pet peeves.

I wish more critics would use "wack-a-licious"

[Sven]

For awhile, in the mid-nineties, it seemed like the nonsense word that critics used to praise action films was "kinetic." Why not just say, "stuff moves" and get it over with?

That is a tough one because the word is so overused. But there really are methods of kineticism in cinema out there that are so interesting and worth exploring.

Explosion and motorcycles does not automatically = kinetic, critics.

[Dukefrukem]

Really I feel the opposite? People are nicer to me at least.

[Amnesiac]

I think unconventional (or is it pretentious?) word use irks everyone but a lot of those same irked people like to employ 'fancy words' themselves. It's just kind of annoying to see someone else tap into some really purple prose because one just tends to get irritated with such overt showiness for one reason or another. But it's a contradictory irritation, ultimately, because most likely enjoy fleshing out their own vocabulary and aiming towards a writing style that isn't too banal or pedestrian, and this is a good thing... but selecting words (and when to use them) is a very delicate procedure, and while it's certainly beneficial to broaden one's vocabulary, exercising certain words can sometimes make you look brazenly ostentatious. There are also certain words that work when typed but can't really be uttered in person.

[D_Davis]

I wish more critics would use "wack-a-licious"

The best thing about that word is that is can mean both good and bad.

[Derek]

When Somebody Poorly, Incorrectly, or Stupidly Argues A Position That You Share

I do not like the film Knocked Up. However, I don't dislike it because it is vaguely conservative. There are more people than should be the case (IRL, peeps) who, when the film and my opinion of it have been the subject of conversation, jump to the assumption that the film's moral instruction of Rogen's character is my beef. I have to spend more time than should be the case debunking that, noting that it's not my intention to criticize Apatow's half-assed hurrah for familial values.

Are you suggesting that arguing the film's conservatism and "moral instruction" is a poor, incorrect or stupidly argued position?

[Dukefrukem]

The last paragraph of the first entry brings me to (obvious one):

Thrill-words/-phrases That Mean Nothing/Quote Whoring

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/matchcut/BlueCrushJPGMax.jpg

I don't know what else to call them. Things like "slam-bang," "kickass," "explosive," "high octane," and "ride" variations like "thrill ride," "fun ride," "roller coaster ride," etc. They are terrible wastes of space and whenever I see anything like these in a review, I stop reading. Does that make me snooty? Maybe. But it's the kind of snooty that I don't mind being.

Look at this site. (http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=2661) Your blood will boil. Note: if you're worried about boiled blood, do not look at this site.

and yes it does make you snooty.

[D_Davis]

But it's lame, ultimately, because most likely enjoy fleshing out their own vocabulary and aiming towards a writing style that isn't too dumb, and this is a good thing... but selecting words (and when to use them) is neat, and while it's certainly good to be good, using certain words can sometimes make you look lame. There are also certain words that work when typed but can't really be said in person.

fixed.

[Sven]

Yes, another peeve of mine that will not get a feature is when people complain about pretentious word choice. It's like you're criticizing someone for trying to be specific and unique. Sure it's weird and sometimes a bit too showy, but I hardly think it's productive to pick on that. Focus on the ideas and if the words adequately communicate the ideas, why complain?

[Amnesiac]

fixed.

:lol: Yeah, I was aware of the slight irony of that post. But, like I mentioned, I ultimately promote the broadening of one's vocabulary... it just happens to be a little grating and showy sometimes.

[Dukefrukem]

Yes, another peeve of mine that will not get a feature is when people complain about pretentious word choice. It's like you're criticizing someone for trying to be specific and unique. Sure it's weird and sometimes a bit too showy, but I hardly think it's productive to pick on that. Focus on the ideas and if the words adequately communicate the ideas, why complain?

That doesn't fall under this (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=194863&postcount=9)?

[Eleven]

I laughed, I cried, I was supercilious.

[Sven]

Are you suggesting that arguing the film's conservatism and "moral instruction" is a poor, incorrect or stupidly argued position?

Argh. I knew I didn't do that one right. Of course not (and I would hope that at this point you would know that I'm not so dismissive). That's just an example of me being an inadequate writer. If I could somehow rewrite that entry to include "coming from a different ideological perspective."

The gist is that I feel irritated when I feel like somebody has become a proxy voice for my own opinions, but that they're coming at it from either an uninformed or entirely oppositional stance as my own. I guess it's similar to the way leftists must've felt they were perceived by the world during the Bush administration.

[Derek]

That doesn't fall under this (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=194863&postcount=9)?

How is complaining about pretentious word choice the same as actively using vague, stupid catch-phrases to appeal to the lowest common denominator?

[Sven]

That doesn't fall under this (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=194863&postcount=9)?

"kickass, high-octane roller coaster ride" doesn't tell me anything.

[Qrazy]

I think unconventional (or is it pretentious?) word use irks everyone but a lot of those same irked people like to employ 'fancy words' themselves. It's just kind of annoying to see someone else tap into some really purple prose because one just tends to get irritated with such plucky showiness for one reason or another. But it's a contradictory irritation, ultimately, because most likely enjoy fleshing out their own vocabulary and aiming towards a writing style that isn't too banal or pedestrian, and this is a good thing... but selecting words (and when to use them) is a very delicate procedure, and while it's certainly beneficial to broaden one's vocabulary, exercising certain words can sometimes make you look brazenly ostentatious. There are also certain words that work when typed but can't really be uttered in person.

I don't think there's anything wrong with applying 'vocab words' for added punch. A problem only arises when people inundate their semantic elaborations with superfluous phraseology en masse. Clarity is key.

[Eleven]

"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear" ? Daniel Dennett.

[Sven]

"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear" ? Daniel Dennett.

I wish I could be so succinct.

[Qrazy]

Yes, another peeve of mine that will not get a feature is when people complain about pretentious word choice. It's like you're criticizing someone for trying to be specific and unique. Sure it's weird and sometimes a bit too showy, but I hardly think it's productive to pick on that. Focus on the ideas and if the words adequately communicate the ideas, why complain?

This is often precisely the problem.

[Amnesiac]

I don't think there's anything wrong with applying 'vocab words' for added punch.

I don't either, but depending on my mood, and the context of specific posts, it can seem like a bit of a stretch and I sometimes sense a touch of narcissism/pomposity in it. I shouldn't, because this is a bad assumption, and it's not really fair, but it accounts for my occasional irritation with posts that sometimes come across a little convoluted and unnatural. I'm probably guilty of the same thing, though!

[Sven]

This is often precisely the problem.

There are many who would complain about your "inundate..." sentence a couple posts back. I would not. Because what you said made sense. Frankly, I think it's mostly a matter of people needing to stop being lazy and work on developing larger vocabularies.

[Qrazy]

I don't either, but depending on my mood, and the context of specific posts, it can seem like a bit of a stretch and I sometimes sense a touch of narcissism/pomposity in it.

I shouldn't, because this is a bad assumption, and it's not really fair, but it accounts for my occasional irritation with posts that sometimes come across a little convoluted and unnatural.

I agree, with both sentiments (substituting 'I' with 'one' so as not to imply that I am agreeing that you do this anymore than anyone else)

[Qrazy]

There are many who would complain about your "inundate..." sentence a couple posts back. I would not. Because what you said made sense. Frankly, I think it's mostly a matter of people needing to stop being lazy and work on developing larger vocabularies.

Haha I wrote that sentence because it's one I would complain about. Yeah it makes sense but it's unnecessarily elaborate. I'm of the opinion that a reader ought to have to work to understand someone's ideas but not to understand their language. Unless such language use is a fictional experimental exercise (Joyce or etc).

[Russ]

"explosive"
If a critic just told me that "things blow up real good," I'd probably be more inclined to buy a ticket.

[Sven]

Haha I wrote that sentence because it's one I would complain about. Yeah it makes sense but it's unnecessarily elaborate. I'm of the opinion that a reader ought to have to work to understand someone's ideas but not to understand their language. Unless such language use is a fictional experimental exercise (Joyce or etc).

Perhaps it is just the fact that I've been dealing with theory-based jargon and vocabulary for the last couple of years. I know I've expressed frustration with pompous wordslinging in the past. I suppose my interests have been recalibrated, at least for the time being.

[Qrazy]

Perhaps it is just the fact that I've been dealing with theory-based jargon and vocabulary for the last couple of years. I know I've expressed frustration with pompous wordslinging in the past. I suppose my interests have been recalibrated, at least for the time being.

Reasonable.

[Dukefrukem]

So if we are all aware of these issues, why are we such dicks to each other>?

[Sven]

So if we are all aware of these issues, why are we such dicks to each other>?

This is the big question, isn't it?

[Bosco B Thug]

Haha I wrote that sentence because it's one I would complain about. Yeah it makes sense but it's unnecessarily elaborate. I'm of the opinion that a reader ought to have to work to understand someone's ideas but not to understand their language. Unless such language use is a fictional experimental exercise (Joyce or etc). Oh, there was absolutely nothing wrong with your "inundate" sentence. I'm honestly surprised to hear you contrived it.

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't like when someone has a different opinion than mine. Seriously, that's my biggest pet peeve.

[Sven]

When Newer, Faddier Films Make It Onto Hundreds Of "Great Films Of All Time" Lists

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/matchcut/dark-knight-joker_l.jpg

I know it's not really my business to tell people how much they should like something. My list-centric complaints seem to undercut that awareness. But still, doesn't it get your goat when you see a movie that just barely came out make it onto every Top 100 list you come across?

I'm not proposing any formula or set-in-stone constraints, because that would be ridiculous. I just get tired of seeing the same things over and over and that's what this comes down to. I spend too much time on the Internet, I think, is what it comes down to.

[Qrazy]

My biggest pet peeve is that the internet is so god damn addictive.

[Dukefrukem]

When Newer, Faddier Films Make It Onto Hundreds Of "Great Films Of All Time" Lists

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/matchcut/dark-knight-joker_l.jpg

I know it's not really my business to tell people how much they should like something. My list-centric complaints seem to undercut that awareness. But still, doesn't it get your goat when you see a movie that just barely came out make it onto every Top 100 list you come across?

I'm not proposing any formula or set-in-stone constraints, because that would be ridiculous. I just get tired of seeing the same things over and over and that's what this comes down to. I spend too much time on the Internet, I think, is what it comes down to.

The Matrix deserves to be on there. :pritch:

[Winston*]

The last one falls under the category of things not worth giving a shit about.

[BuffaloWilder]

When Newer, Faddier Films Make It Onto Hundreds Of "Great Films Of All Time" Lists

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/matchcut/dark-knight-joker_l.jpg

I know it's not really my business to tell people how much they should like something. My list-centric complaints seem to undercut that awareness. But still, doesn't it get your goat when you see a movie that just barely came out make it onto every Top 100 list you come across?

I'm not proposing any formula or set-in-stone constraints, because that would be ridiculous. I just get tired of seeing the same things over and over and that's what this comes down to. I spend too much time on the Internet, I think, is what it comes down to.

I think that particular film has a good chance, with the benefit of age, as being remembered as one of the better films of this time period.

[number8]

I know it's not really my business to tell people how much they should like something. My list-centric complaints seem to undercut that awareness. But still, doesn't it get your goat when you see a movie that just barely came out make it onto every Top 100 list you come across?

What Top 100 are you looking at? IMDB? Because that one is based on an algorithm.

It's really no more annoying that walking out of a movie while declaring it "the greatest movie I have ever seen."

[Dead & Messed Up]

I spend too much time on the Internet, I think, is what it comes down to.

Yeah. It's silly, but I've made my peace with the Internet crowd. Usually, I just take it as a sign that people were surprised and delighted by a well-executed film (Star Trek, LotR, Dark Knight). Eventually the insanity dies down.

[Sven]

The last one falls under the category of things not worth giving a shit about.

Most of these are. I think that is included in the definition of "peeve."

And, of course, those who spoke are right about this one ('cept you, BW, I am convinced). it is simply hyperbole, and hype dies. But it's still annoying, particularly when, as in my case with the above picture, you are on the opposing team.

[BuffaloWilder]

And, of course, those who spoke are right about this one ('cept you, BW, I am convinced).

http://fi.somethingawful.com/customtitles/title-idemandsatisfaction.gif

[Sven]

http://fi.somethingawful.com/customtitles/title-idemandsatisfaction.gif

I wonder when this is going to get old. My prediction: February 2011

[BuffaloWilder]

I wonder when this is going to get old. My prediction: February 2011

Before then, surely. That's why I always keep on the lookout for gloveslap .gifs.

[Grouchy]

Bah, The Dark Knight will obviously be remembered as one of this generation's movies.

Quote me on this 20 years from now, when the entire world has become the internet.

[Sven]

Bah, The Dark Knight will obviously be remembered as one of this generation's movies.

Yes, O sagely one, much like Smokey & the Bandit, eh?

[Grouchy]

Yes, O sagely one, much like Smokey & the Bandit, eh?
More like Star Wars.

[Spun Lepton]

Overrated

Nothing says "I value other people's opinions over my own," like saying something is "overrated." "Underrated," is not so bad, but it spawns from the same arrogant state of mind.

Ridiculous embellishments on opinions.

"I would rather have all the toes on my left foot CHOPPED OFF than see that film again." Oh, you would, would you? Let's put that to the test, shall we? Wait! Where are you going! Let's have those toes! Oh, so you were full of shit after all? BIG SURPRISE.

"Michael Bay is an inhuman monster!" He's a corporate whore who can't seem to tell a coherent story, but a monster? Please. He's just making empty entertainment, he's not harming anybody.

[Sven]

More like Star Wars.

Remembered =/= good.

[Dead & Messed Up]

More like Star Wars.

Okay, that ain't gonna happen.


Please. He's just making empty entertainment, he's not harming anybody.

He's facilitating the dumbing-down of American culture. Probably world culture, too.

[Spun Lepton]

He's facilitating the dumbing-down of American culture. Probably world culture, too.

So is the Internet, but you're here right now, aren't you? Do you own a cell phone? Do you watch television?

[Derek]

I have no problem valuing my own opinion over others being that it is mine after all. It's akin to valuing our own family and property above others and doesn't preclude being open to others opinions or the ability to rethink my own point of view. The notion that everyone's opinion is equal is something of a farce.

[Winston*]

So is the Internet

Is it?

[Dead & Messed Up]

So is the Internet, but you're here right now, aren't you? Do you own a cell phone? Do you watch television?

You're talking about modes of media, which are inert until acted upon by people.

[Qrazy]

So is the Internet.

That's a completely false statement.

[Sven]

He's facilitating the dumbing-down of American culture. Probably world culture, too.

This is another one of those peeves that may or may not get a feature down the line. Do you know what's best for culture? What are your suggestions for the alternative? Do you realize that we're probably the product of years and years and years of this "dumbing down"? Bad movies, music, and writing have been popular for a long, long time.

Personally, I like that bad stuff is frequently more popular than the good stuff, because it makes the good stuff that much more special.

[Qrazy]

This is another one of those peeves that may or may not get a feature down the line. Do you know what's best for culture? What are your suggestions for the alternative? Do you realize that we're probably the product of years and years and years of this "dumbing down"? Bad movies, music, and writing have been popular for a long, long time.

Personally, I like that bad stuff is frequently more popular than the good stuff, because it makes the good stuff that much more special.

So we ought to live in a mind numbingly stupid shit hole of a world with an infinitesimal amount of intelligent art because that will make said art that much better?

[Sycophant]

I find the word "overrated" irksome especially when it's thrown in with a bunch of praise for a film. It's the glaring desire to not be grouped in with "them" that bothers me.

Also, I can't speak for the rest of you, but I'm rather certain I have the best and most important opinions on not on this forum, but the Internet.

Speaking of the Internet, it's not dumbing down culture. At least that's not the only thing it's doing. The Internet--in terms of culture--is, I believe, a definite net positive. But I think we're getting into serious tangent territory here.

[Sven]

So we ought to live in a mind numbingly stupid shit hole of a world with an infinitesimal amount of intelligent art because that will make said art that much better?

I never said anything about "ought" or "mind numbingly stupid shit" anything.

[Spun Lepton]

Sven makes a good point, probably better than my own. :P

[Sven]

But I think we're getting into serious tangent territory here.

It is my thread and I welcome this.

[Spun Lepton]

You're talking about modes of media, which are inert until acted upon by people.

It's a fair cop.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This is another one of those peeves that may or may not get a feature down the line. Do you know what's best for culture?

No, I don't know, but I have my opinions, one of which you just read.

:)

[Spun Lepton]

No, I don't know, but I have my opinions, one of which you just read.

:)

Overrated.

[Sven]

No, I don't know, but I have my opinions, one of which you just read.

:)

Like... what's culture? Do you really think good movies will stop being made?

I suppose I do know a few older cinephiles who are pretty convinced that good movies are no longer made as frequently as before. But I think that may just be specious crankiness.

[Sycophant]

I touched on this in the Video Game Discussion Thread, but I get really annoyed when someone claims that something like 99% of anything ever made ever is shit. That number's way too high, it's too absolute, it restricts a subjective view, and it's absurdly binary. There are virtually inifinte levels between perfection and utter shit, and there can be something rewarding to be found in even mediocre works. I know it's a popular thing to say, but I think it's a cynical and unfortunate attitude.

[Sycophant]

I just can't muster up that much outrage and vitriol for blockbuster films I don't like/object to. There is a demand for Michael Bay's films. He's not creating it, he's filling it. I have friends who would rather watch a thousand (what I would deem mediocre or awful) American PG-13 special effects extravaganzas with plots even they'll admit is tacked on and retarded over any pensive, humanist Japanese drama or a Bergman film. They go to the cinema for somewhat different reasons than I do (or at least are going for the reason, but respond favorably to different stimuli). They wouldn't be satisfied watching The Royal Tenenbaums over and over again like I once did, but they just have to own the best available Blu-ray edition of Snyder's 300.

They're intelligent people, though! They're responsible adults. They're compassionate. They're fun to be around. They're good citizens. I just can't muster the kind of disdain and outrage at what these movies do to society that I used to.

Sure, I got irritated with Enchanted for its brazen consumerist message, and would think twice about letting that be a lesson the film teaches to a daughter of mine. So maybe I'm a bit of a hypocrite. But I can't bring myself to look down on my friends whose kids'll watch such things, nor can I call for the head of Kevin Lima for making such a movie.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Like... what's culture? Do you really think good movies will stop being made?

Is that what my statement implied? I honestly don't think so. I wasn't gunning for some sort of apocalyptic end-of-good-movies scenario.

My original point was that he's facilitating the dumbing-down of American culture. I think it means what it seems to mean: that he's lowering the bar, people continue to limbo, and the dance is only growing.

[Amnesiac]

This is just a general pet peeve that no one but me will probably agree with: "like". This is not even exclusive to discussion of cinema so I'm breaking the rules a bit.

For instance: "This movie, like, changed my freaking life". Everything about sentences like these, from the "like" to the use of italics... I don't know. Why is it annoying when people do this? I'm not sure even I have the answer but I've seen it done several times. I think the aim is at emulating a rhythm that sounds similar to something someone would say in real life but it ends up coming across very contrived. But it's not, like, that big of a deal.

[Winston*]

I really don't like when during someone's critique of a movie they make broad assumptions of the people who like it's intelligence. I don't think it matters how unsophisticated the movie is either. If you like White Chicks, you still don't deserve to be called an idiot. That's mean and shows a narrow view of humanity.

[D_Davis]

Ridiculous embellishments on opinions.

"I would rather have all the toes on my left foot CHOPPED OFF than see that film again." Oh, you would, would you? Let's put that to the test, shall we? Wait! Where are you going! Let's have those toes! Oh, so you were full of shit after all? BIG SURPRISE.

"Michael Bay is an inhuman monster!" He's a corporate whore who can't seem to tell a coherent story, but a monster? Please. He's just making empty entertainment, he's not harming anybody.

I'm partial to "I'd rather have a nail hammered into my taint than watch Stealing Beauty again."

I like exaggeration. It's fun and good and funny.

[Qrazy]

I never said anything about "ought" or "mind numbingly stupid shit" anything.

Your statement implies an ought. It implies that we ought not to make any cultural judgments about what culture ought to be or that it is valuable to have a dumbed down pop culture because it makes better stuff more special. If we carry your idea further then the prizing of bad art and the general dumbing down of cultural is a good thing and should continue, because it makes the good stuff more rare/special/valuable. The more thoughtless art out there, the more rare the intelligent stuff becomes and in your equation thus more valuable. Or is there some point where the bad can outweigh the good too significantly? Alternatively you are only saying that you do not feel culture is being dumbed down, in which case I disagree and would cite the history of journalism, the rise of reality tv, the studio products being released currently versus in the past, etc.

Unless we hold to some absurdly relativistic perspective about the nature of art and thought, I think there are perfectly good reasons why someone can make judgments about what is better for culture. If one values intellect and artistic integrity, than it would be good to see more art which values it as well. Jimmy Fallon's Taxi and Beverly Hills Chihuahua do not value these things. I think that it would be much better for everyone if you could talk to the average person about movies, music or literature and not have to discuss Chihuahuas, Britney Spears or Twilight. I'm not saying that these books, films or music should not be made and should not have an audience. Whatever, I don't care. But it would be a much better statement about our civilization if so many people didn't hold these examples in such high esteem. There is a relationship between what the media pushes out and what the audience eats up which exists in the scripts which are chosen to be made into films, how money is spent on advertising and elsewhere which all fuel the cultural zeitgeist. No one person is at fault but our culture as a whole does not place much value on intellect or artistic integrity in art. And I'm only speaking in terms of large movements, not only in the specific films which I think are more worthy of recognition.

[D_Davis]

This is just a general pet peeve that no one but me will probably agree with: "like". This is not even exclusive to discussion of cinema so I'm breaking the rules a bit.

For instance: "This movie, like, changed my freaking life". Everything about sentences like these, from the "like" to the use of italics... I don't know. Why is it annoying when people do this? I'm not sure even I have the answer but I've seen it done several times. I think the aim is at emulating a rhythm that sounds similar to something someone would say in real life but it ends up coming across very contrived. But it's not, like, that big of a deal.

That's like, your opinion, man.

[Amnesiac]

That's like, your opinion, man.

Okay, it works for Jeff Bridges in that context. But there are always exceptions.

[Qrazy]

Like... what's culture? Do you really think good movies will stop being made?

I suppose I do know a few older cinephiles who are pretty convinced that good movies are no longer made as frequently as before. But I think that may just be specious crankiness.

If we're talking about the studio system and funding then yes I think that fewer artistically valuable movies are being made. Especially in relation to how many are being made compared to how many used to be made. But more importantly than what's being made, the real cultural barometer is in what's being watched.

[Sycophant]

I'm probably the worst offender on this site in that regard, Amnesiac. As I've spent more time on the Internet, the aim of my e-conversation has become to best emulate the way I speak. I'm more or less transcribing the way the words would come out of my mouth. They arise organically.

Only when I make a conscious shift to write more professionally/academically does this change.

[Watashi]

It's not used in the critical circle, but I hate when people (mostly my idiotic friends) accuse me of liking a certain movie because it "ripped off" a similar movie (aka WALL-E ripped off Short Circuit or The Incredibles ripped off The Fantastic Four).

Maybe this is why I'm so defendant of Pixar here because most of friends (and I use that term loosely) hate WALL-E and Pixar's recent films.

[Watashi]

I wish there was a film school out there that doesn't tell you how to shoot a film and use all the camera/editing techniques, but just makes you sit down and watch a bunch of obscure shit and discuss it afterward.

[Winston*]

I wish there was a film school out there that doesn't tell you how to shoot a film and use all the camera/editing techniques, but just makes you sit down and watch a bunch of obscure shit and discuss it afterward.

Couldn't you just go to university if you wanted that?

[Watashi]

Couldn't you just go to university if you wanted that?
I know. I want to.

Every film class I have gone to, it's all about "getting into the business" and "knowing how producer thinks". That's great. I don't want to get into the business. I just want to watch good movies.

I haven't gone to a 4-year though, so that's probably why.

[Winston*]

Couldn't you just go to university if you wanted that?

That wink was accidental btw. I wasn't making making fun.

[Watashi]

That wink was accidental btw. I wasn't making making fun.
I thought it was you coming on to me.

Now I'm saddened.

[Sven]

Your statement implies an ought. It implies that we ought not to make any cultural judgments about what culture ought to be or that it is valuable to have a dumbed down pop culture because it makes better stuff more special. If we carry your idea further then the prizing of bad art and the general dumbing down of cultural is a good thing and should continue, because it makes the good stuff more rare/special/valuable. The more thoughtless art out there, the more rare the intelligent stuff becomes and in your equation thus more valuable. Or is there some point where the bad can outweigh the good too significantly? Alternatively you are only saying that you do not feel culture is being dumbed down, in which case I disagree and would cite the history of journalism, the rise of reality tv, the studio products being released currently versus in the past, etc.

Unless we hold to some absurdly relativistic perspective about the nature of art and thought, I think there are perfectly good reasons why someone can make judgments about what is better for culture. If one values intellect and artistic integrity, than it would be good to see more art which values it as well. Jimmy Fallon's Taxi and Beverly Hills Chihuahua do not value these things. I think that it would be much better for everyone if you could talk to the average person about movies, music or literature and not have to discuss Chihuahuas, Britney Spears or Twilight. I'm not saying that these books, films or music should not be made and should not have an audience. Whatever, I don't care. But it would be a much better statement about our civilization if so many people didn't hold these examples in such high esteem. There is a relationship between what the media pushes out and what the audience eats up which exists in the scripts which are chosen to be made into films, how money is spent on advertising and elsewhere which all fuel the cultural zeitgeist. No one person is at fault but our culture as a whole does not place much value on intellect or artistic integrity in art. And I'm only speaking in terms of large movements, not only in the specific films which I think are more worthy of recognition.

Jimmy Fallon's Taxi - have you seen it?
Beverly Hills Chihuahua - have you seen it?
Twilight - have you seen/read it?
Britney Spears - I have read plenty of positive criticism of her output

That is all beside the point. I don't think I am implying an ought, although I will admit that there is something pretty off-putting about listening to folk, particularly of the young variety, suggest that "culture" (such a broooooaaaaad term) is "in trouble" because of such-and-such-Chihuahuas or whatever. I mean, what about trash culture? Is that not viable? Underground, alternative, child, subversive, etc. Also, are we talking about American culture? I think we're all being very vague. I think what I was doing was expressing a contentedness at the state of things. Yes, always question, always push, always challenge... that is the state of things. And it is wonderful that we can have great films that triumph over the bad ones. Perhaps I could choose less confusing words to communicate that thought, though I disagree with your continuation of what you think I was implying because it's a too linear for what I'm trying to illustrate. "More special" is too complicated a thing for me to attempt to describe.

I think, too, that I would argue that this high art that you desire has always been relatively peripheral. Or at least, that it's not JUST a modern thing. It is true that high art generally survives, but I think the high art of 1950s is just as interesting as the high art of the 15th century.

Also, something that's failing to be considered here is increased exposure and demand. There are more movies made today because technology has increased, the population has increased, methods of acquisition have increased, and the industry is more established. It is in my experience, being a relatively smart person (I hope) and well-versed in a broad spectrum of cinematic exposure, that the ratios of good popular cinema to bad popular cinema are about the same. This, I would argue, is also more affecting towards the things like reality tv, etc, that you cited.

[Sven]

80% of the time, I do not proofread my posts. They are usually stream of consciousness. So I hope I'm at least making a little sense.

[number8]

My peeve is the defense of inept movies simply because they offer empty entertainment.

There are plenty of big loud explodey movies that are well-made and actually fun, you know. If we can get our dumb kicks from them, why do we need to give a pass for the really shitty ones just because "it is what it is"?

[Sven]

My peeve is the defense of inept movies simply because they offer empty entertainment.

There are plenty of big loud explodey movies that are well-made and actually fun, you know. If we can get our dumb kicks from them, why do we need to give a pass for the really shitty ones just because "it is what it is"?

I believe I touched on this in the original thread, though I can't remember.

But yes, good one. "Turn your brain off" is always going to make me wince.

[Spinal]

"A bit overrated but still da 2nd best movie of all time." -- pseudo-Ben Lyons, on The Dark Knight

Possibly the greatest Match Cut quote ever.

[Spun Lepton]

Also, something that's failing to be considered here is increased exposure and demand. There are more movies made today because technology has increased, the population has increased, methods of acquisition have increased, and the industry is more established. It is in my experience, being a relatively smart person (I hope) and well-versed in a broad spectrum of cinematic exposure, that the ratios of good popular cinema to bad popular cinema are about the same. This, I would argue, is also more affecting towards the things like reality tv, etc, that you cited.

Yup!

[megladon8]

I still have to say one of my greatest pet peeves is this statement (or some variation thereof)...

"You didn't like ___________? Well you obviously didn't get it."

[Dead & Messed Up]

I still have to say one of my greatest pet peeves is this statement (or some variation thereof)...

"You didn't like ___________? Well you obviously didn't get it."

An opposing criticism, equally irritating, is the reductive "we get it" attack.

Worst example I've heard: "Yes, Sideways, life is like wine. We get it."

[megladon8]

An opposing criticism, equally irritating, is the reductive "we get it" attack.

Worst example I've heard: "Yes, Sideways, life is like wine. We get it."


I agree thought the sentiment can sometimes apply, I think.

If a film has just one thing to say, and says it every 30 seconds, it can feel a bit like what that statement says.

But yeah, I agree, I just can't deny that once in a while I get that feeling from a movie. "OK! I get it! Corporations suck! Move on!"

[Grouchy]

I wish there was a film school out there that doesn't tell you how to shoot a film and use all the camera/editing techniques, but just makes you sit down and watch a bunch of obscure shit and discuss it afterward.
Huh, I go to film school and I complain about the exact opposite - too much theory, too little practice.

I mean, Scriptwiting II was all about watching films like Jeanne Dielman and 10 Minutes of Silence for John Lennon and discussing endlessly about the shit that doesn't go on in them as opposed to mainstream cinema. Not once did we sit down to actually WRITE A GODDAMN STORY until the final period. Fucking frustrating.

[number8]

"Now I used to read comic books when I was a little kid. I remember that I used to have a stack of Teen Titans and Fantastic Four comics that I would save up and buy. I read each copy 20 times, so I go see superhero movies all the time. But this NEW SUPERHERO MOVIE OUT THIS WEEK is just not a good movie!"

What the fuck does your childhood have anything to do with it?

[Amnesiac]

I'm probably the worst offender on this site in that regard, Amnesiac. As I've spent more time on the Internet, the aim of my e-conversation has become to best emulate the way I speak. I'm more or less transcribing the way the words would come out of my mouth. They arise organically.


Yeah, don't worry, I don't hate you for it or anything and can understand the mentality behind it and I actually hadn't even noticed that you did it.

[Winston*]

"Now I used to read comic books when I was a little kid. I remember that I used to have a stack of Teen Titans and Fantastic Four comics that I would save up and buy. I read each copy 20 times, so I go see superhero movies all the time. But this NEW SUPERHERO MOVIE OUT THIS WEEK is just not a good movie!"

What the fuck does your childhood have anything to do with it?

Music reviews are the worst for this. Pitchfork, specifically.

[Dead & Messed Up]

"Now I used to read comic books when I was a little kid. I remember that I used to have a stack of Teen Titans and Fantastic Four comics that I would save up and buy. I read each copy 20 times, so I go see superhero movies all the time. But this NEW SUPERHERO MOVIE OUT THIS WEEK is just not a good movie!"

What the fuck does your childhood have anything to do with it?

If it goes some way toward explaining a bias or predilection, I get it. Most times, it's just a way to inflate the article or give it some false sense of drama.

"I've been a fan of Superman since I was three, and if this would've been screwed up, it would've broken my heart!"

World's smallest violin. Get on with it.

[number8]

If it goes some way toward explaining a bias or predilection, I get it. Most times, it's just a way to inflate the article or give it some false sense of drama.

"I've been a fan of Superman since I was three, and if this would've been screwed up, it would've broken my heart!"

World's smallest violin. Get on with it.

I meant to imply that NEW SUPERHERO MOVIE OUT THIS WEEK has absolutely nothing to do with either Teen Titans or Fantastic Four.

[Ivan Drago]

Something that I've ran into recently that kinda bugs me is the idea that a film has only one possible interpretation. An example was not too long ago in the FDT - I brought up Synecdoche New York and said that it had a theme of "Life is shit", as supported by the motif of actual shit, but then someone said "I don't think that's what the film was going for.", or something to that extent. At least that's how I took it - that whoever dismissed my thoughts was saying that Synecdoche has one possible interpretation.

This makes me hesistant to post thoughts on movies I've seen recently or start posting my 50 Favorite Films list with commentary - fearing that my interpretations will get shot down.

[Amnesiac]

This makes me hesistant to post thoughts on movies I've seen recently or start posting my 50 Favorite Films list with commentary - fearing that my interpretations will get shot down.

Don't be hesitant just because people want to be despotic about the meaning of a film or are just totally dismissive of any interpretation besides their own. There will always be a differing opinion or two, but that's no reason to silence yours as if it were inherently flawed.

[Sycophant]

Y'know, Ivan, it is possible to actually debate--or even, discuss--these things if you think your point is valid. Be it in the Film Discussion Thread or elsewhere!

[Sven]

This makes me hesistant to post thoughts on movies I've seen recently or start posting my 50 Favorite Films list with commentary - fearing that my interpretations will get shot down.

Take it from a seasoned abusee: just do it. For every asshole you get, there will be at least three people that will give you constructive help or find you interesting. Don't focus on the bad. I know it's easy, but once you get past it, confidence grows exponentially.

[transmogrifier]

"Now I used to read comic books when I was a little kid. I remember that I used to have a stack of Teen Titans and Fantastic Four comics that I would save up and buy. I read each copy 20 times, so I go see superhero movies all the time. But this NEW SUPERHERO MOVIE OUT THIS WEEK is just not a good movie!"

What the fuck does your childhood have anything to do with it?

Ethos, pathos, logos....the above is simply an example of ethos, establishing your "credentials" while delivering a persuasive argument. Pretty standard tactic.

The only true pet peeve I have with regards arguing about movies is when someone on the opposite side to you makes assumptions about your motivations, thought processes or secret agenda, and uses this "information: that they have just invented out of thin air as ammunition against your original opinion.

Most of the other things here are not really anything to get to fussed about - especially not how people choose to word their own opinions. Let them do what they like, and either roll with it or not.

Oh, there is ONE other thing that peeves me, and that is people complaining about the word "overrated". It is a useful word for comparing your reaction to the general consensus, and I wish people would stop trying to link it to arrogance or the like (oh, hey, that's the crux of my argument above - full circle!)

[BuffaloWilder]

From the other thread:

"This movie just didn't seem to know what genre it wanted to be!"

I'm actually surprised this one is still so common.

[transmogrifier]

From the other thread:

"This movie just didn't seem to know what genre it wanted to be!"

I'm actually surprised this one is still so common.

There is nothing wrong with that sentence if it is put in context and explained how the genre switching reduces the overall merit of the film.

[BuffaloWilder]

There is nothing wrong with that sentence if it is put in context and explained how the genre switching reduces the overall merit of the film.

This is done very rarely, though.

[transmogrifier]

This is done very rarely, though.

But as with most of the pet peeves related to the opinions of others, the sentence by itself is not necessarily a problem - it all comes down to the rest of the review and how it all comes together. That's why I think it is kind of wasted energy to be annoyed by a soundbite in particular.

[Spun Lepton]

Oh, there is ONE other thing that peeves me, and that is people complaining about the word "overrated". It is a useful word for comparing your reaction to the general consensus, and I wish people would stop trying to link it to arrogance or the like (oh, hey, that's the crux of my argument above - full circle!)

"Overrated" is automatically imbued with the suggestion that the speaker's opinion is better than popular consensus. If you can't see that, then perhaps you too are arrogant.

[Ezee E]

It's called Film Studies Wats.

[transmogrifier]

"Overrated" is automatically imbued with the suggestion that the speaker's opinion is better than popular consensus. If you can't see that, then perhaps you too are arrogant.

No, it's not. Simple as that.

"Overrated" = I didn't like it as much as most other people = They rated it higher than I did = It is overrated compared to how I judged it = "Overrated"

Ta-da! Pretty simple, no? Compare it to, say, you going to look at a house and find that it probably isn't worth the price it has been listed for. If you were to say it was "overvalued" are you suddenly arrogant? No. You are comparing the price you see as reasonable with the price others see as reasonable. Stop being so precious about semantics.

[Spun Lepton]

No, it's not. Simple as that.

"Overrated" = I didn't like it as much as most other people = They rated it higher than I did = It is overrated compared to how I judged it = "Overrated"

Ta-da! Pretty simple, no?

Why does this shit always devolve into semantics around here? I already said my opinions on the subject. I said what the word means to me and why I dislike it. Turning around the quoting a definition of the word isn't going to change my opinion on the subject. I've seen plenty of "overrated" rants and lists, and they're always made by arrogant individuals who believe their opinion is greater than the general public's.

You can disagree all you like and use "overrated" all you want, but that won't change the fact that you'll come off as an arrogant asshole to anybody who doesn't hold your personal opinions in any kind of regard.

[transmogrifier]

Why does this shit always devolve into semantics around here? I already said my opinions on the subject. I said what the word means to me and why I dislike it. Turning around the quoting a definition of the word isn't going to change my opinion on the subject. I've seen plenty of "overrated" rants and lists, and they're always made by arrogant individuals who believe their opinion is greater than the general public's.

You can disagree all you like and use "overrated" all you want, but that won't change the fact that you'll come off as an arrogant asshole to anybody who doesn't hold your personal opinions in any kind of regard.

Forget all that. That's you overthinking a very simple word with an accurate, readily understandable meaning. Answer me this:

If I use the word "overrated" to describe a movie, will you understand that I dislike it more than the overall popular consensus? Yes or no?

[B-side]

Yeah, I gotta side with trans. It's not intrinsically condescending. Considering nobody can speak of a film's quality objectively, it's simply a reflection of an opinion that opposes the general consensus.

[megladon8]

I'm somewhere in the middle.

The term itself is not condescending or arrogant, but I find it is quite often used in a way and with a tone that reeks of both.

So yeah, kind of agree with both of you.


/trying to be diplomatic

[B-side]

I'm somewhere in the middle.

The term itself is not condescending or arrogant, but I find it is quite often used in a way and with a tone that reeks of both.

So yeah, kind of agree with both of you.

/trying to be diplomatic

Well, see, now you've got me siding with you. Now I look all wishy-washy and indecisive. I blame this in you.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Most of the other things here are not really anything to get to fussed about - especially not how people choose to word their own opinions. Let them do what they like, and either roll with it or not.

It's a thread about pet peeves! The entire point is that these things provoke greater irritation than they should.

[D_Davis]

"Overrated" is automatically imbued with the suggestion that the speaker's opinion is better than popular consensus. If you can't see that, then perhaps you too are arrogant.

I'd say it signifies that the speaker's opinion is simply different. I'm often out of step with many genre fans when it comes to books and films, and so I do think many things are overrated and underrated. But I do not automatically think that my opinion is superior while theirs is inferior - they are just different.

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't know, I'm all for giving people benefits of doubt, but if you say something is overrated, you are automatically saying it shouldn't be so rated. Thus your opinion > whatever consensus you're drawing from.

But I think a lot of movies are overrated - as I'm sure everyone does - so so be it.

[D_Davis]

I don't know, I'm all for giving people benefits of doubt, but if you say something is overrated, you are automatically saying it shouldn't be so rated. Thus your opinion > whatever consensus you're drawing from.


A different opinion does not mean a better opinion.

[Benny Profane]

A different opinion does not mean a better opinion.

Really.

[Mara]

A different opinion does not mean a better opinion.

Theoretically, if you thought someone else's opinion was better than your own, wouldn't you change your opinion to theirs?

[Derek]

Theoretically, if you thought someone else's opinion was better than your own, wouldn't you change your opinion to theirs?

Bingo.

[Mara]

Bingo.

I smart.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, a different opinion (from my own) is typically a worse opinion, actually.

[Derek]

Yeah, a different opinion (from my own) is typically a worse opinion, actually.

It seems obvious, yet there's always talk about people being pretentious for holding their opinion above others or how all opinions are equal.

[Sycophant]

It seems obvious, yet there's always talk about people being pretentious for holding their opinion above others or how all opinions are equal.

Yeah, maybe to some sort of cosmic non-personified God-entity, all opinions are equal and valuable and beautiful. But as a subjective human being, mine are the bestest.

[Russ]

I'll be ranking people's opinions in a forthcoming List-Fu thread.

Be sure and stay tuned for that.

[Ezee E]

But what if you aren't as qualified as the other person? This isn't necessarily in movies, but say work performance. You know a person for an hour, and are relatively new to the job but think so and so is a good worker, while the manager, who has seen this coworker the entire time he/she's been employed thinks they suck.

[Sycophant]

I suppose you have point, E. But I think there is a difference there when looking at reaction to and opinion of art or whatever and job performance, which seems a good deal more objective.

[D_Davis]

It seems obvious, yet there's always talk about people being pretentious for holding their opinion above others or how all opinions are equal.


All opinions are not equal.

[D_Davis]

My opinion of a movie > than a 5 year old's

There are many important factors to gauge when evaluating the merit of an opinion.

[D_Davis]

Theoretically, if you thought someone else's opinion was better than your own, wouldn't you change your opinion to theirs?

Opinions can be equal but different.

[Russ]

I'm of the opinion that opinions are overrated.

[Qrazy]

It seems obvious, yet there's always talk about people being pretentious for holding their opinion above others or how all opinions are equal.

All opinions are not equal, but one person's opinions are not always necessarily correct by virtue of them holding that opinion. Believing oneself to be infallible can generate arrogance.

So, it depends what you're talking about. If you're only talking about art and you accept the belief that artistic appreciation has a highly subjective element opinions aren't so much equal as they are incomparable. If someone says 'I like this painting because it touches me and reminds me of this moment in my childhood', you can't say 'No, you're wrong it's a shit painting because I did not have your childhood and I don't like the color scheme'. Your feeling of dislike for the painting (opinion), is no better or more right than the other person's sense of appreciation. Which of course doesn't mean the painting or film or piece of writing does not have some objective elements of better or worse craftsmanship than something else, merely that the end result of enjoying one piece of art over another, is highly subjective.

[Melville]

My opinion of a movie > than a 5 year old's

There are many important factors to gauge when evaluating the merit of an opinion.

Opinions can be equal but different.
Yes and yes. Some opinions are more well-founded than others, but lots of times there is no basis for determining which opinion is right or wrong. I can think a joke is funny, an actress good-looking, or whatever, without thinking that the opposite opinion is somehow "wrong", because there is no meaningful criteria to determine which opinion is "better". Generally, I think the best I can do is explain in detail what I like about something and try to convey the general worldview which leads me to like such a thing.

EDIT: also, "yes" to what Qrazy said.

[Qrazy]

Jimmy Fallon's Taxi - have you seen it?
Beverly Hills Chihuahua - have you seen it?
Twilight - have you seen/read it?
Britney Spears - I have read plenty of positive criticism of her output

No, I have seen clips of all on youtube or elsewhere, and I doubt I'd be able to watch any of them all the way through. It's kind of beside the point though for two reasons. Firstly, the examples are not that important, substitute others if you wish. Secondly, I can make informed decisions about something without having complete first hand experience with it. Having read The Da Vinci Code I can assume that Angels and Demons is of a similar poor quality. It's possible I'm wrong but it's more likely that I'm right (at least that the books are comparable in terms of quality). All of life requires some level of trust and assumption. I assume that if I drop a coffee cup it will fall. I trust that most people I speak to are being honest with me. If I hear ten terrible Black Eyed Peas songs it is not an unreasonable assumption that the eleventh will also not be good.

So you've read positive criticism of Spears. I've read positive criticism of plenty of terrible music/film/literature. That's largely my point, we have a culture which eats this stuff up.


That is all beside the point. I don't think I am implying an ought, although I will admit that there is something pretty off-putting about listening to folk, particularly of the young variety, suggest that "culture" (such a broooooaaaaad term) is "in trouble" because of such-and-such-Chihuahuas or whatever. I mean, what about trash culture? Is that not viable? Underground, alternative, child, subversive, etc. Also, are we talking about American culture?

Yes, we are limiting ourselves to American culture. I thought I wrote that somewhere, perhaps not. I'm talking primarily about the general cultural zeitgeist of current American culture. I'm also primarily talking about what the film industry produces (rather than the indie movement) and what the average American watches. While I do feel culture has gone downhill and continues to do so, I don't think that's really the point either. The point I'm primarily arguing (in relation to our previous posts) is that the good stuff is not more special when surrounded by thoughtless drivel. I would most certainly prefer the greater funding, creation and proliferation of thoughtful cinema (this can include action/genre cinema) or in general greater popularity for thoughtful cinema in our culture.


I think we're all being very vague. I think what I was doing was expressing a contentedness at the state of things. Yes, always question, always push, always challenge... that is the state of things. And it is wonderful that we can have great films that triumph over the bad ones.

Yes well I am not content with the state of things in relation to cultural values. This is precisely why great films often do not triumph over bad ones financially. I'm not even blaming the studios or individual directors for this problem. Although I think some people in the system are more responsible than others. I don't blame individuals who wish to see bad films either. More so I am dissatisfied with our general cultural values and what I view as a general social lack of interest in artistry.


Perhaps I could choose less confusing words to communicate that thought, though I disagree with your continuation of what you think I was implying because it's a too linear for what I'm trying to illustrate. "More special" is too complicated a thing for me to attempt to describe.

So I did not understand what you were saying but you can not clarify what it was you were actually saying... come on man. If you want to drop the conversation that's fine, I'm not that committed to it, but this is pretty weak.


I think, too, that I would argue that this high art that you desire has always been relatively peripheral. Or at least, that it's not JUST a modern thing. It is true that high art generally survives, but I think the high art of 1950s is just as interesting as the high art of the 15th century.

I don't think it has always been as peripheral and I think there are periods of greater artistic freedom and creation. Just look at the music that was popular a few decades ago compared to what has become popular now. The Beatles, Rolling Stones. Black Eyed Peas, Limp Bizkit? Ugh.


Also, something that's failing to be considered here is increased exposure and demand. There are more movies made today because technology has increased, the population has increased, methods of acquisition have increased, and the industry is more established. It is in my experience, being a relatively smart person (I hope) and well-versed in a broad spectrum of cinematic exposure, that the ratios of good popular cinema to bad popular cinema are about the same. This, I would argue, is also more affecting towards the things like reality tv, etc, that you cited.

Yes more movies are being made so if the ratio were to hold of good to bad there should actually be more good movies being made... but as far as I can tell there are actually less good (studio based or at least sufficiently distributed) movies being made. There are exceptions but I've found this to be a very weak decade for American film.

[BuffaloWilder]

The Black Eyed Peas are an occasionally enjoyable pop band. There, I said it.


Their use on the G.I. Joe soundtrack is indefensible, though.

[Qrazy]

The Black Eyed Peas are an occasionally enjoyable pop band. There, I said it.


Their use on the G.I. Joe soundtrack is indefensible, though.

I bought Elephunk because their first album was solid and I found Where is the Love to be enjoyable enough, but the rest of the album is total dog shit.

[Amnesiac]

I bought Elephunk because their first album was solid and I found Where is the Love to be enjoyable enough, but the rest of the album is total dog shit.

I would not exclude "Where is the Love" from the excrement category.

[Qrazy]

I would not exclude "Where is the Love" from the excrement category.

Anyway, it's at least slightly less excrement than Let's Get Retarded.

[Sven]

So I did not understand what you were saying but you can not clarify what it was you were actually saying... come on man. If you want to drop the conversation that's fine, I'm not that committed to it, but this is pretty weak.

I will respond only to this:

I amend my statement: I am confident that an American culture founded on respectable, quality art will survive no matter how much exposure the bad stuff gets. The bad stuff has a use, though, as a barometer and as a counterpoint. Naturally I prefer the good, but I refuse to take part in bad culture-bashing because a) it is highly functional work and b) to do so would make look like someone who thinks they know everything. No offense intended, though I'm sure some is unavoidable.

Everything else you said was highly unstable. Assuming objective quality (I really like The Black Eyed Peas) and suggesting that the proliferation of quality cinema is not already being done (though I understand you want an increase). One thing I suspect is that your readiness to reject entire films based on your opinion of their overall worthiness is acting as a gauze. There is so much interesting stuff to consider about even the dumbest films, and so many people (many of whom smart ones) that undoubtedly disagree with your assessment, that even if you do think they are terrible, decrying their existence seems a bit like a form of wishful censorship. Forgive me for suggesting that that sounds a bit snobbish.



Sorry. I will bow out now. Like I said before: talking about big vague things like "zeitgeist of American culture" (contemporary Americana?) makes me uncomfortable. I think, too, that my aversion to the concept of high art is informing my position a bit too heavily.

[Boner M]

May I hog the soapbox for a moment? Even if it's for a bit of a no-brainer?

Discussing the merits of Hollywood cinema in purely relative terms.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll39/colpot10/dark.png

I don't care if The Dark Knight is pretty brainy... for studio fare! That Observe and Report hits upon some pretty dark territory... compared to your average Seth Rogen vehicle! That District 9 is phenomenally engaged with Our Dark Political Times... compared to G.I. Joe or Tranformers! I care about whether the respective aims of these films (and every other) hold their own without having to be graded on a very generous curve, and in most cases, they don't.

[Dead & Messed Up]

May I hog the soapbox for a moment? Even if it's for a bit of a no-brainer?

Discussing the merits of Hollywood cinema in purely relative terms.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll39/colpot10/dark.png

I don't care if The Dark Knight is pretty brainy... for studio fare! That Observe and Report hits upon some pretty dark territory... compared to your average Seth Rogen vehicle! That District 9 is phenomenally engaged with Our Dark Political Times... compared to G.I. Joe or Tranformers! I care about whether the respective aims of these films (and every other) hold their own without having to be graded on a very generous curve, and in most cases, they don't.

That picture bugs me, because the dominant theme is only spoken twice in the picture, once by Dent, and once by Batman at the end. I'd hesitate to even call Joker's talk "thematic." Just because he's expounding on his personal philosophy does not mean he's baldly stating themes.

That said, I understand your frustration about the situation. I'm an adult now - I don't need reviewers to assuage my inability to deal with formula deviation. Get on with it.

[Boner M]

That picture bugs me, because the dominant theme is only spoken twice in the picture, once by Dent, and once by Batman at the end. I'd hesitate to even call Joker's talk "thematic." Just because he's expounding on his personal philosophy does not mean he's baldly stating themes.
The re-circulation of that pic was mainly in jest; nothing to do with my peeve. It started in the top 20 thread and I will bring it up everytime I mention the film, just becuz.

[baby doll]

That picture bugs me, because the dominant theme is only spoken twice in the picture, once by Dent, and once by Batman at the end. I'd hesitate to even call Joker's talk "thematic." Just because he's expounding on his personal philosophy does not mean he's baldly stating themes.Okay, clearly you're in denial. I mean, the movie has one neat image, when he's upside-down and it looks like he's floating upwards, but rather than leave it at that, we get this endless monologue in which he talks and talks, as if to explain the image away.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The re-circulation of that pic was mainly in jest; nothing to do with my peeve. It started in the top 20 thread and I will bring it up everytime I mention the film, just becuz.

Ah, fair enough.


Okay, clearly you're in denial. I mean, the movie has one neat image, when he's upside-down and it looks like he's floating upwards, but rather than leave it at that, we get this endless monologue in which he talks and talks, as if to explain the image away.

He's talking because he's reveling in Batman's inability to kill him and his own success at ruining Dent, and that moment - the climactic moment between the two in the picture - deserves room to breathe. The guy's gloating.

And I also liked the image of him with his head outside the car window, Batman on his motorcycle at the end just as Gordon says "knight," the slow-rotation around the three main heroes on top of MCU. Nolan's problem isn't that he can't create a lasting image - his problem is that he doesn't allow the images to exist and breathe and linger.

So much cutting...

Anyway, I'll try to think of a pet peeve.

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't know, I particularly liked Joker's face leering out of the darkness, during the MCU-Interrogation sequence, as well as the ones you've mentioned.

Batman's silhouette on top of the Sears Tower too, now that I think about it.

[Qrazy]

I will respond only to this:

I amend my statement: I am confident that an American culture founded on respectable, quality art will survive no matter how much exposure the bad stuff gets. The bad stuff has a use, though, as a barometer and as a counterpoint. Naturally I prefer the good, but I refuse to take part in bad culture-bashing because a) it is highly functional work and b) to do so would make look like someone who thinks they know everything. No offense intended, though I'm sure some is unavoidable.

I don't take offense because to me it's absurd that bashing a cultural mentality which gives roughly 100 million dollars to Beverly Hills Chihuahua (and prior to this makes it the highest grossing film of it's weekend release), somehow makes a person a know it all.


Everything else you said was highly unstable. Assuming objective quality (I really like The Black Eyed Peas) and suggesting that the proliferation of quality cinema is not already being done (though I understand you want an increase). One thing I suspect is that your readiness to reject entire films based on your opinion of their overall worthiness is acting as a gauze. There is so much interesting stuff to consider about even the dumbest films, and so many people (many of whom smart ones) that undoubtedly disagree with your assessment, that even if you do think they are terrible, decrying their existence seems a bit like a form of wishful censorship. Forgive me for suggesting that that sounds a bit snobbish.

Again, it doesn't matter if it sounds snobbish because it's a straw man. I'm not decrying their existence. I'm decrying their popularity. The general societal approach to cinema specifically (reflected in what makes money as well as what is primarily discussed and viewed), but also art in general. I thought I made this clear in my last post.

[Spinal]

Eh, I don't know about that one, Boner Man. I think that if you can take into account things like when a film was made, where it was made, what constraints were in place when it was made, political climate, Hays Code, whatever, then it's perfectly reasonable to make note of a film's place within the marketplace. If I choose to have a Bergman night, then I'm rating that film on how well it gives me a satisfying Bergman experience. If I choose to see a broad mainstream comedy like The Hangover, I am not going to carry expectations of sophistication into my viewing.

[number8]

Also, Boner, curious that your examples are all recent fares, when I more often hear that kind of praise used when discussing classics. Very often, the movies considered classics are considered classics because they defy the usual norm of the classifying group of the time. A lot of film analysis are revolved around its historical and cultural context.

[Boner M]

8 and Spinal, good points and I admittedly didn't take into consideration classic Hollywood in particular, where in some cases the studio-imposed elements go hand-in-hand with the strengths of the film (the final lines of Night of the Demon, to cite an example from my recent viewings, wouldn't be nearly as poignant without the things that Tourneur didn't intend). But I was more addressing the faddish tendencies of critics/shills when it comes to 'edgier' Hollywood fare. Which really goes for any film and not just studio product, though. DaMU clarified it better:

I'm an adult now - I don't need reviewers to assuage my inability to deal with formula deviation. Get on with it.

[Sven]

Well, now that some of that is out of our system, I will keep the blood-boiling to a minimum (hopefully) with some peeves about specific criticisms.

Dismissing Altman's 80s Output

http://www.originalalamo.com/images/ocandstiggsweb.jpg

HealtH - ****
Popeye - ****
Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean - ***1/2
Streamers - ***1/2
Secret Honor - ***
OC & Stiggs (pictured above) - ****
Fool for Love - ****
Beyond Therapy - ***1/2
The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial - ***1/2
Tanner 88 - ****

That's a lot of stars. His tendencies for experimentation were flourishing on a smaller scale, without the large distributions or budgets, but always with the same panache. It seems like people forget that his creative brio was consistent throughout his career. Maybe it's because he was working largely in television and not the silver screen, but the pictures themselves speak of a filmmaker just as playful and daring as ever.

[Sven]

Hating On Musicals Just Because They're Musicals

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/071203/bandwagon_l.jpg

Let's do be realistic here: there are no good criticisms against the Musical as a genre. Simply zero. The same could be said for any genre, but Musicals all too frequently get the finger-wag. And it gets under my skin, because I'm a huge fan of the genre. And being a fan, it is only reasonable to assume that there are non-fans. And I do not mind hearing that one does not have a taste for them. But once they start picking at them as though there is something inherently incorrect about them, I have learned to run the other way, for fear that I may start rioting.

[Kurosawa Fan]

:sad:

[Mara]

There are several things about the musical genre that are legitimately annoying. But when they are good, there are few genres better.

Lots of love on that one.

[Sven]

There are several things about the musical genre that are legitimately annoying.

I would like to hear more on this.

[Sycophant]

I saw a short musical theatrical production last weekend. In the talkback session that followed, one of the audience members said that he was glad to see that it wasn't just like every musical ever made where it's all happy and ridiculously joyous all throughout. Which is a tired, inaccurate picture of musicals. Most musicals tend to feature about as many soul-searching, tortured, or despairing songs as snappy, sunshiney odes to the joy of living.

That's a peeve of mine, anyway. They get a bad rap seemingly based on some actually inaccurate picture of what they're necessarily about.

Repping you not just for the post, Sven, but for the accompanying picture from just about my favorite scene ever.

[Mara]

I would like to hear more on this.

Oh, you know what I mean. Things like sappy torch songs and all the pedestrians on the street all knowing the same choreography. Things that are always done, and often done badly.

[Sven]

Oh, you know what I mean. Things like sappy torch songs and all the pedestrians on the street all knowing the same choreography. Things that are always done, and often done badly.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with pedestrians knowing the choreography. I think that's the whole point of them, no? The communicability of the rhythms of life kind of thing. Sappy torch songs are not inherent to the genre.

There are plenty of bad musicals, and bad productions of good musicals, but this holds true for every style of film. It's when someone rags on a musical JUST BECAUSE it is a musical... that is what gets me.

[megladon8]

I totally understand what you're saying, Sven. You're using musical as an example for anyone totally dismissing and bashing an entire genre of films.

I admit I'm not the biggest fan of musicals, but there are no inherent flaws to the genre, and I've seen some that I adored. It's just not a genre I often actively seek out when I'm looking to see something new.

There are many people who feel the same way about horror, or sci-fi. To not be much of a fan of that particular group of films is one thing, but to deem them all worthless because of that is ridiculous.

"Eh, I'm not a fan of (insert genre here)" is a pretty terrible criticism.

[Sven]

I totally understand what you're saying, Sven. You're using musical as an example for anyone totally dismissing and bashing an entire genre of films.

Yes, but somehow it doesn't bother me as much when said about other genres (though it's still annoying). I think it's just that I've heard it so frequently applied to musicals... it's like people who say that aren't even TRYING to meet the film on its terms. "Wait, people are dancing? Why would they dance? How does everyone know the lyrics?" If you're not going to try, don't even bother.

[megladon8]

Yes, but somehow it doesn't bother me as much when said about other genres (though it's still annoying). I think it's just that I've heard it so frequently applied to musicals... it's like people who say that aren't even TRYING to meet the film on its terms. "Wait, people are dancing? Why would they dance? How does everyone know the lyrics?" If you're not going to try, don't even bother.


Yes, this is akin to my friend who couldn't stand Superman Returns because it's physically impossible for a human to fly.

If you refuse to even attempt to engage the film on any level, I have no time for you or your discussion.

[Qrazy]

[B][SIZE="5"]
Let's do be realistic here: there are no good criticisms against the Musical as a genre. Simply zero. The same could be said for any genre.

Torture porn?

[megladon8]

Even torture porn has had a few cases where the genre trappings really worked.

Hell, I would say there was something really smart going on in the original Hostel, but it was hampered by Eli Roth's inability to tell a good story on film. But that dichotomy of the sex and violence was quite intriguing, especially during the first half.

[Sven]

Torture porn?

I do not think there is inherently anything wrong with the form, no. Though to be fair, I don't think that's really a genre and more a nickname for a subset of horror films focused on prolonged mutilation. Which can work. It's not my bag, but it can work.

[Winston*]

Qrazy was using the term literally.

[Sven]

Qrazy was using the term literally.

As a descriptor for Musicals? I thought that was the case...

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with pedestrians knowing the choreography. I think that's the whole point of them, no? The communicability of the rhythms of life kind of thing.

I think it's a tough line - if it's too spontaneous, then it pokes at your believability.

Speaking of, while it's not quite the same thing, have some Bobby McFerrin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6tB2KiZuk).

[Philosophe_rouge]

mmm musicals

[Sven]

I think it's a tough line - if it's too spontaneous, then it pokes at your believability.

This doesn't make sense. You want it to always grow organically, or...? Plus, believability zuh? What does belief have to do with it?

[BuffaloWilder]

This doesn't make sense. You want it to always grow organically, or...?

Not exactly, but I'll put it like this - if there's a musical number that at first involves two people, say, it makes more sense to maybe show a crowd gathering or watching in the background at least rather than have BAM the whole crowd flipping about at the drop of a hat. Only the worst musicals do that. Have it build, and all of that.


What does belief have to do with it?

To this, I say 'zuh?'

[Sven]

Not exactly, but I'll put it like this - if there's a musical number that at first involves two people, say, it makes more sense to maybe show a crowd gathering or watching in the background at least rather than have BAM the whole crowd flipping about at the drop of a hat. Only the worst musicals do that. Have it build, and all of that.

Well, not all music has to build. A lot of great art and entertainment is historically grounded in that kind of shock and surprise.


To this, I say 'zuh?'

You said "believability," which communicates a belief in something. And I'm wondering what on Earth you are wanting to believe in when a musical number is too spontaneous. What are you believing is supposed to happen?

[BuffaloWilder]

Well, not all music has to build. A lot of great art and entertainment is historically grounded in that kind of shock and surprise.

I suppose it depends on the kind of world the filmmaker sets up. Although, I was talking more about the musical number itself than the music.




You said "believability," which communicates a belief in something. And I'm wondering what on Earth you are wanting to believe in when a musical number is too spontaneous. What are you believing is supposed to happen?

Perhaps that wasn't the right turn of phrase. Suspension of disbelief, howzabout.

[Spinal]

Hating On Musicals Just Because They're Musicals

Repping the hell out of this.

[Mara]

Let me put it this way: I'm not a fan of horror films. It's just not my thing. But that's not a real reason to criticize a film. It's just a reason not to see it.

"Saw sucks because all horror films suck." <---like that.

I think it is, however, a real reason to compliment a film.

"I'm not usually a fan of horror, but I thought Cat People was fantastic." <---This is using one's own bias as evidence that a film can transcend the typical fans of a certain genre.

This doesn't work with me and musicals, though, because musicals are awesome.

[Eleven]

I wish the real world was more like a musical.

[Sven]

I wish the real world was more like a musical.

I believe it is this impulse, or something close to it, that prompts people to go around everywhere with their headphones.

[Eleven]

I believe it is this impulse, or something close to it, that prompts people to go around everywhere with their headphones.

Well, wishing the world had a soundtrack is a slightly different impulse. I'd settle for observing, and not even participating in, spontaneous choreographed movement and elegant duets in everyday life, but I guess that's why musicals have been called the most utopian of genres.

[megladon8]

I still love Disney musicals.

[BuffaloWilder]

I prefer Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly.

White Nights and Tap with Gregory Hines are good, as well - though, I don't know if you could call them musicals.

[Sven]

Not Being Able To Adequately Explain My Attraction To The Later Works Of M. Night Shyamalan

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/matchcut/superM-NIGHT-SHYAMALANgi000x0432x26.jpg

Surely we all like movies that, to varying degrees, are either utterly confounding or ridiculous to us, right? I mean... a film's purpose doesn't have to necessarily lie in surface narrative cohesion, right? We all have those films and filmmakers that, however they do it, speak to the part of your mind that remains dormant during conversations about those films and filmmakers, right? I really can't explain why Shyamalan's films work for me the way they do. The criticisms make too much sense for me to ignore, and yet I find myself captivated by his films' rhythms, their strange use of language, their flow of expertly structured images. He always manages to milk impressive, subversive performances from his actors, and even when those performances don't seem to work (Weaver in The Village, Wahlberg in The Happening), they are unique creations with a life of their own.

See, it's all so vague. The only thing I'm confident in saying is that the man's images flow. There are clunky scenes now and again (the party climax of The Lady in the Water, for instance, could've been DePalma-esque, but was rather flat), but vibrant and terribly exciting are images from his films in my mind. Even The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, neither of which I'm terribly fond of, are still very impressive visually.

Still... I'd like to sit down for a month with this guy's stuff and really nail what it is I like about them. Either that or embrace his elusiveness.

The Sixth Sense - **1/2
Unbreakable - **
Signs - ****
The Village - ***1/2
Lady in the Water - ****
The Happening - ***1/2

[Ezee E]

Bizarro! The Happening might make one of the worst movies I've seen. Luckily, it's enjoyable to watch for the suicides and the unintentional hilarity.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Bizarro! The Happening might make one of the worst movies I've seen. Luckily, it's enjoyable to watch for the suicides and the unintentional hilarity.

Honestly, I found its dark streak of humor utterly intentional, almost part of the style. There is something horrifying to me about those people passing the gun, but there's also something deeply humorous about the nonchalant manner, and Shyamalan's matter-of-fact approach.

Gags about plastic plants, hot dogs, and lemon drinks are equally bizarre and amusing to me, as I suspect they were to Shyamalan.

[Grouchy]

Personally, I think the only thing of great value he had to add to cinema was Unbreakable, and we're ten years past that.

The Happening is also one of the worst movies I have ever seen, mainly because it seems to think it works on a level where it really doesn't.

Maybe I'm being too harsh and Shyamalandingdong still has a good movie in him. But he seriously needs to stop boycotting himself, then.

[megladon8]

I think he's a talented director who needs to accept the fact that he's said all he has to say as a writer.

His writing peaked with Unbreakable, and slowly declined from that. His direction remains fairly solid, though, and he has the potential to be one of America's most valuable directors, if he would just let someone else write for him.

The Sixth Sense - 8
Unbreakable - 10
Signs - 7.5
The Village - 5
Lady in the Water - 5.5

[Spinal]

Lady in the Water - ****


This just stops me in my tracks. I have no idea what to do with this.

[BuffaloWilder]

I'm more surprised by his three and a half stars for The Happening.

[Spinal]

I'm more surprised by his three and a half stars for The Happening.

I might be too if I had seen it, but I haven't. Maybe a double feature with Southland Tales is in order!

[transmogrifier]

This just stops me in my tracks. I have no idea what to do with this.

Do what I do. Chuckle, shake your head, and say, "Oh, Svensos". Then go shoot a rat at the dump.

[transmogrifier]

I might be too if I had seen it, but I haven't. Maybe a double feature with Southland Tales is in order!

The Happening is so bad, it's funny. Southland Tales is so bad, it's headache-inducing. Bear this in mind when choosing the sequencing.

[Bosco B Thug]

Without having seen Unbreakable, I'd say The Village is the only thing he's done that's worth much of anything. Despite its flaws, undoubtedly it shows the most maturity and complexity.

I have no love at all for The Sixth Sense. Every beat of the film strikes me as gimmickry and manipulation, and I find the film's entire premise profoundly empty.

The Sixth Sense - 3.5/10
Signs - 4.5/10
The Village - 6/10
Lady in the Water - 4/10
The Happening - 4/10

But yeah, he's an offbeat stylist, and I like that. Lady in the Water is an amiable and whimsical work, though, I sorta liked it. I actually remember really liking the use of broad ethnic characterizations.

The Happening has some interesting undercurrents. It has the minimalist gentleness Shyamalan likes so much clashing oddly against its exploitation film mean streak. I can totally see why some people would find it beguiling.

[BuffaloWilder]

I too enjoyed Lady In the Water.

[Qrazy]

I would like to recommend people the film The Sixth Sense stole it's twist from but I can't do so without kind of spoiling that film.

[megladon8]

I would like to recommend people the film The Sixth Sense stole it's twist from but I can't do so without kind of spoiling that film.


Spoiler tag it.

[Grouchy]

I would like to recommend people the film The Sixth Sense stole it's twist from but I can't do so without kind of spoiling that film.
I'm pretty sure Shyamalan planned that eventuality from the beginning.

[Raiders]

I think I properly explained my liking Lady in the Water most of all Shammy's films at the old site by looking at his work as a series of childlike films (or in other words, films that use a childlike vantage point) and how it flowed into Lady which was almost entirely fairytale. I also remember thinking it was a bit of an unmentioned coup at the end that after four straight films almost defined by their "twists" or "lightbulb!" endings, he played it straight to the bitter end.

But, I abhorred The Happening.

[Sven]

This just stops me in my tracks. I have no idea what to do with this.

I know! I just... I just can't explain it. Argh!

[Watashi]

You get rep from me, Sven.

I love the man and I'm pretty sure his best is behind him now that he has to desperately resort to studio franchises (Avatar) to revive his name and career to the general public.

[Qrazy]

You get rep from me, Sven.

I love the man and I'm pretty sure his best is behind him now that he has to desperately resort to studio franchises (Avatar) to revive his name and career to the general public.

His best is behind him because he's finally working with a decent storyline which hopefully he doesn't fuck up? As a fan of both Avatar and Shyamalan I figured you'd be more excited for this project.

[Mysterious Dude]

It's been all downhill since The Sixth Sense, as far as I'm concerned. I thought he had hit bottom with The Village, but I was wrong.

[Spinal]

Yeah, I still think The Sixth Sense is pretty great. Saw it twice and I think it works even after you know where it's going. And Toni Collette is phenomenal. As always.

[Spinal]

I know! I just... I just can't explain it. Argh!

I'm not going to go the easy route and play the contrarian card. I believe you really genuinely like the movie. It has to be because you enjoy things that are out-of-step, aggressively unfashionable, earnest and a little bit awkward. Like, for example, Popeye.

[BuffaloWilder]

Sven likes Popeye?

Oh, Sven.

[Spinal]

Sven likes Popeye?



That would be an understatement.

[BuffaloWilder]

I require proof of this.

[Spinal]

I require proof of this.

Page 6 of this thread.

[Mara]

I really liked Popeye when I saw it. Mind you, it was twenty-some-odd years ago. But I think I could still sing the whole "He Needs Me" song from memory. Catchy.

[Mara]

I've never seen anything after The Village-- which I liked-- because I heard they were bad. But I may have to check them out, because I've actually really enjoyed his output.

The Sixth Sense ***.5
Unbreakable ****
Signs ***
The Village ***

[Raiders]

I also like Popeye from when I finally watched it about a year or so ago.

[Sven]

I'm not going to go the easy route and play the contrarian card. I believe you really genuinely like the movie. It has to be because you enjoy things that are out-of-step, aggressively unfashionable, earnest and a little bit awkward. Like, for example, Popeye.

I do not think this is a bad assessment. My only quibble would be "aggressively unfashionable," but even that may be more truthful than I think it is. Because I am rather prone to not getting along with trends. Still, that does imply a kind of contrarianism: that I like it because Shyamalan, not the movie, is unfashionable. Which I don't think is the case. Rather, the film itself does not fall predictably or easily into any larger group of contemporary films. It is terribly unique. At least, I cannot think of any films quite like it.

Or something. I don't know. And yes, BuffaloWilderWings, Popeye has been cited as my favorite film of all time on several occasions.

[Spinal]

I really liked Popeye when I saw it. Mind you, it was twenty-some-odd years ago. But I think I could still sing the whole "He Needs Me" song from memory. Catchy.

Yes, I watched that scene on Youtube recently and it convinced me that I need to revisit the film.

[BuffaloWilder]

Well, I may have committed a more egregious sin - I enjoyed Drillbit Taylor.

There, I said it.

[Sven]

Well, I may have committed a more egregious sin - I enjoyed Drillbit Taylor.

There, I said it.

No, the more egregious sin is saying that it's an egregious sin to dislike Popeye! Get over your youthful prejudices and watch it again!

[Qrazy]

I watched Popeye a few months ago. It was OK, fairly shoddily put together formally by Altman standards, but it certainly has it's moments.

[Sycophant]

Pet peeve when discussing cinema: Semen. Ejaculation. Cum. Sperm. Getting hard. Jacking off.

[Ivan Drago]

Pet peeve when discussing cinema: Semen. Ejaculation. Cum. Sperm. Getting hard. Jacking off.

So saying "This movie will be so good, my cock will explode" doesn't sit well with you?

[BuffaloWilder]

No, the more egregious sin is saying that it's an egregious sin to dislike Popeye! Get over your youthful prejudices and watch it again!

http://www.videodetective.net/photos/036/001517_8.jpg

I don't wanna! I don't wanna! Waaaah! Waaaah!


although, that was more about calling enjoying Drillbit Taylor an egregious sin than it was Popeye, but what the hey.

[Bosco B Thug]

I think I properly explained my liking Lady in the Water most of all Shammy's films at the old site by looking at his work as a series of childlike films (or in other words, films that use a childlike vantage point) and how it flowed into Lady which was almost entirely fairytale. I also remember thinking it was a bit of an unmentioned coup at the end that after four straight films almost defined by their "twists" or "lightbulb!" endings, he played it straight to the bitter end.

But, I abhorred The Happening. It fits well into your schema, though, The Happening being a film about a bunch of grown-up babies.

The Happening's problem is it lacks a lot of integrity. It's probably too fashionable when it comes to the regular joe movie viewers, and Shyamalan thus treats the whole film as a joke.

There is things to like, though. He feigns some interesting character work (I for one love the "We're uninvolved bystanders" "Let me think!" scene, or at least the concept behind it), and as usual he conflates his action climax with an emotional one, which is always cool, I guess. Mawkish and idiotic, but always cool (when Shyamalan does it). I was swept up: the wind blowing, their eyes longing, as they all drag each other outside to their doom.

Popeye's wonderful, but if you're Tarantino, this film will really wear your patience in the last quarter.

[Watashi]

This pet peeve is coming from all the Avatar talk.

I hate when people criticize a film for "looking like a video game". Um... so what? Video games are becoming more and more cinematic with every year, so maybe it's just the two mediums playing off each other in a respectable way. No one ever criticizes a game because it looks too much like a movie.

[Watashi]

That peeves also stems up from every time I have to defend Speed Racer.

[megladon8]

This pet peeve is coming from all the Avatar talk.

I hate when people criticize a film for "looking like a video game". Um... so what? Video games are becoming more and more cinematic with every year, so maybe it's just the two mediums playing off each other in a respectable way. No one ever criticizes a game because it looks too much like a movie.


"Metal Gear Solid" games play too much like movies.

That is, there's more time spent watching melodramatic cutscenes and not enough time spent playing the frickin' game.

[Watashi]

"Metal Gear Solid" games play too much like movies.

That is, there's more time spent watching melodramatic cutscenes and not enough time spent playing the frickin' game.
I love cutscenes.

I rarely play games for repetitive action. I'm more interested in how good a story is to keep me still playing.

[Ezee E]

This pet peeve is coming from all the Avatar talk.

I hate when people criticize a film for "looking like a video game". Um... so what? Video games are becoming more and more cinematic with every year, so maybe it's just the two mediums playing off each other in a respectable way. No one ever criticizes a game because it looks too much like a movie.

I still don't think video game cutscenes are anything special. Outside of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid, I can't think of any stories that were actually engaging. Speed Racer, that criticism is moot, since it seems intentional. Avatar, it just looks unfinished, and it is.

[Watashi]

Avatar, it just looks unfinished, and it is.

How do you know? Cameron is also heavily involved in the Avatar game which also had its trailer premiered today. Maybe Avatar's action scenes and designs are suppose to look like a video game.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I love cutscenes.

I rarely play games for repetitive action. I'm more interested in how good a story is to keep me still playing.

I doubt anyone plays video games for repetitive action. :|

Stories can help a game, but frankly, it's the gameplay that matters. That's what distinguishes them from other narrative media. At the risk of being reductive, that's kinda the whole point.

[megladon8]

I doubt anyone plays video games for repetitive action. :|

Stories can help a game, but frankly, it's the gameplay that matters. That's what distinguishes them from other narrative media. At the risk of being reductive, that's kinda the whole point.


This.

[D_Davis]

I love cutscenes.

I rarely play games for repetitive action. I'm more interested in how good a story is to keep me still playing.

I'm exactly the opposite. I rarely watch cut scenes. I can't even remember the last one I watched all the way through.

For story, I turn to books. For me, games are all about the gameplay and the virtual environments.

However, I do agree with you that the "it looks like a game" criticism is terribly vapid now. It's just an empty phrase that's tossed around flippantly, especially if it's meant in a derogatory manner. It's like, really? Which game? Mass Effect, Ico, Okami, Gears of War, Fable II, Fallout III? Because if so, those games looked pretty dang great, and they played well, too.

I can't tell if the phrase is being used to belittle video games, or the movie. All it really does is reveal a certain amount of ignorance.

[megladon8]

I don't see how it's an ignorant criticism at all.

When a film's effects are meant to blend in with the real, tangible elements, to say that they look like a video game can be quite an apt way of explaining in few words the way that they're glossy, plastic-y, floaty (that is, lack the weight of real objects/people/animals), etc.

Yes, "Mass Effect" is a great looking game. But are you really going to tell me that its graphics are good enough to be used as the CGI in a movie and it wouldn't bother you?

Like any other criticism, of course it can (and has been) overused. But for say, a movie like the first Spider-Man, I think it's a pretty great way of summing up a lot of the film's CGI sequences. It looked like video game graphics, rather than top-notch CGI attempting to impersonate reality.

[D_Davis]

Yes, "Mass Effect" is a great looking game. But are you really going to tell me that its graphics are good enough to be used as the CGI in a movie and it wouldn't bother you?


I've seen worse, and loved the movies.

Like I've said elsewhere, poor effects in a movie rarely distract me. I think it's just something I've gotten used to with watching so many HK and Japanese genre films.

:shrug:

[megladon8]

They rarely bother me, either.

I'm just talking about the criticism of the actual effects. Like I've said elsewhere, Harryhausen effects are still some of my favorite stuff ever, and they're far from looking real.

I'm just saying that stating that a film's CGI effects look like video game graphics is a perfectly reasonable statement.

[Sycophant]

The special effects in Jeff Lau's A Chinese Tall Story look like PS1-era cutscenes. That's all I've got.

[BuffaloWilder]

It has merit when it's being used in the context of effects, but not overall orchestration, which is how it's used a lot.

[Ezee E]

While some of the Avatar shots (on the computer) look like very good shots from Mass Effect, I will say that some of the space scenes that I've seen in BSG look like good cutscenes for a PS1. Can't even take that seriously.

[Qrazy]

That's absurd.

[Boner M]

Here's a peeve that has more to do with amazon/netflix/IMDb comments than here...

Using "I Watch Lots of Foreign Films" to strengthen your argument that the last one you saw sucked

http://www.treble.info/movies/les_choristes/pictures/les_choristes.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_y0fwpIT6Wcw/STRQO1tQ7HI/AAAAAAAAAk4/hhJmjXSmYEU/s400/Intentional+Unisex+two+thumbs. jpg

Of course, because you've explored the challenging fringes of cinema by watching subtitled films, because you've thumbed your noses to Hollywood convention in the company of such cutting-edge masterworks as Joyeux Noel and The Motorcycle Diaries, yours would have to be the most credible verdict for Notre Musique or Tropical Malady. I'm sorry to have ever doubted you. *clicks 'this review was helpful', watches Chen Kaige films*

[transmogrifier]

After traipsing through the Upcoming Films board, one thing that is quite saddening is the number of times someone will say something along the lines of "It has CELEBRITY doing SOME RANDOM ACT, I'm there". It's not just here, but an epidemic among many bloggers and cineastes, the inelegant marrying of celebrity fawning and pre-packaged tickboxes of what it means to be cool, at the expense of any curiosity whatsover of what the film is actually about. I think it leads to more and more films expressly built as a vessel for isolated pop moments that are supposed to approximate the zeitgeist at the expense of film craft, modulation of mood and emotion, and sometimes even coherency.

[Qrazy]

Of course, because you've explored the challenging fringes of cinema by watching subtitled films, because you've thumbed your noses to Hollywood convention in the company of such cutting-edge masterworks as Joyeux Noel and The Motorcycle Diaries, yours would have to be the most credible verdict for Notre Musique or Tropical Malady. I'm sorry to have ever doubted you. *clicks 'this review was helpful', watches Chen Kaige films*

You leave Chen Kaige alone.

[B-side]

After traipsing through the Upcoming Films board, one thing that is quite saddening is the number of times someone will say something along the lines of "It has CELEBRITY doing SOME RANDOM ACT, I'm there". It's not just here, but an epidemic among many bloggers and cineastes, the inelegant marrying of celebrity fawning and pre-packaged tickboxes of what it means to be cool, at the expense of any curiosity whatsover of what the film is actually about. I think it leads to more and more films expressly built as a vessel for isolated pop moments that are supposed to approximate the zeitgeist at the expense of film craft, modulation of mood and emotion, and sometimes even coherency.

So rep.

[Dukefrukem]

After traipsing through the Upcoming Films board, one thing that is quite saddening is the number of times someone will say something along the lines of "It has CELEBRITY doing SOME RANDOM ACT, I'm there". It's not just here, but an epidemic among many bloggers and cineastes, the inelegant marrying of celebrity fawning and pre-packaged tickboxes of what it means to be cool, at the expense of any curiosity whatsover of what the film is actually about. I think it leads to more and more films expressly built as a vessel for isolated pop moments that are supposed to approximate the zeitgeist at the expense of film craft, modulation of mood and emotion, and sometimes even coherency.

Are you just talking about the act? What if someone posts they want to see it because of an actor?

[megladon8]

While it was briefly hit upon in Sven's posts about "Discussing the merits of Hollywood cinema in purely relative terms", I find just about any kind of qualifier to be a bit irritating.

"It's brilliant filmmaking when you consider that the director was aiming for a B-movie feel."

"For a slasher, it's got some smart writing."

"Considering it's a superhero movie, it's actually quite good."


I very much believe that a good movie is a good movie, and a bad movie is a bad movie. Regardless of genre, intended satire or unintentional comedy. I find plenty to love and admire about Danger: Diabolik! without having to look at it as pulpy B-movie schlock.

Like I said, this has been touched on before, but I just wanted to write it out in my own words.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm lucky to have never read those quotes before. They're all pretty ridiculous.

[Sycophant]

Conventional Wisdom

I can't really think of anything specific to say here without getting petty or diluting my meaning. So I'm just going to let "convetional wisdom" rest as the entirety of my submission.