Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 21:10:14 GMT
i'll gladly admit i know nothing about ethics and morals etc if it makes u feel better Nah mate, was mostly talking about the other guy. These types of "whoa is reality even real" bong-infused conversations just seem kinda funny now these days though. The edgy "whoa Hitler did nothing wrong!" mentality should stay on 4chan and is just so utterly bankrupt of anything other than "lmao mum I'm being contrarian online." Was I wrong in assuming the point of this thread was to be contrarian?
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 9, 2017 21:16:28 GMT
I know in you're replies you're saying that objective morality not existing is what you're really claiming to, but then this just seems like a try-hard kind of statement. For one, I doubt objective morality is the popular opinion. Everybody is relativistic in terms of moral judgment and it's not hard to see enough disagreement in the world about them to showcase that morals do not have some scientific method to conclude their validity. So, in the case of Hitler, yes he did nothing objectively wrong but what he did is almost universally considered subjectively wrong so what is there to gain by making this statement other than seeming edgy without really saying anything? That's kind of the point. The fact that the statement sparked so much controversy, just within this thread, proves it. By making this claim (which I technically do believe), I am being both honest, and extremely unpopular. Of course, I subjectively believe Hitler was a horrible person, but that's not what I claimed. I claimed an honest opinion which is extremely unpopular, and by doing so I have fulfilled the request of the OP, and done it to the best of my ability. The controversy you got was not over whether or not Hitler did something objectively wrong (which was your original statement), but whether the statement as you presented it meant anything or added to any discussion. The framing of what you said was what got you a response, not the content. So sure, you got the controversy you wanted, but not explicitly for the reasons this thread intends and it comes across as a try-hard statement that isn't saying anything substantive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 21:19:35 GMT
That's kind of the point. The fact that the statement sparked so much controversy, just within this thread, proves it. By making this claim (which I technically do believe), I am being both honest, and extremely unpopular. Of course, I subjectively believe Hitler was a horrible person, but that's not what I claimed. I claimed an honest opinion which is extremely unpopular, and by doing so I have fulfilled the request of the OP, and done it to the best of my ability. The controversy you got was not over whether or not Hitler did something objectively wrong (which was your original statement), but whether the statement as you presented it meant anything or added to any discussion. The framing of what you said was what got you a response, not the content. So sure, you got the controversy you wanted, but not explicitly for the reasons this thread intends and it comes across as a try-hard statement that isn't saying anything substantive. It was a try-hard statement, and I do admit it wasn't anything substantive. I wasn't trying to spark profound discussion, I was trying to give the most unpopular opinion I had.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 21:49:04 GMT
I think actual love is lost on this generation and people who are currently married and having kids will only end up leaving their spouses and children. It's all about fucking and the only reason those people stayed together was out of a sense of obligation and not because they really give a shit about each other. Also all the "cute" couples make me sick and I kinda really just want John Legend and Chrissy Teigen to divorce so I can stop hearing about those two dickheads and how they're "goals".
The "hard left" is just as awful as the "hard right" in the sense that they all think they're heroes out to do the right thing for their country and fellow citizens when they are mainly looking out for their own self-interests under the pretense of justice or patriotism. The right gets criticized for being hateful cunts but the left reserves all their hate for Christians, which is because the right has a bunch of jackasses calling themselves Christians and spreading a bunch of hateful bile. Of course, that's not to say that everybody in both parties is guilty of such a thing. I'm saying the Tumblr-and-Buzzfeed liberals and the entire comments section on every site (y'know, the ones that get angry when a popular character is race-lifted or gender-flipped) are all a bunch of cockwarts that need to shut the fuck up before they all get their teeth kicked in.
A similar sentiment can be said for vegetarians. This is where I'm put in a corner. I would never personally kill an animal, but I have no qualms against eating them. That probably makes me a hypocrite. I have had to see some of those videos that show just how the food I eat is made, and it's indeed fucked up (I saw one video of a pig getting whacked over the head with a sledgehammer and then writhing on the ground in agony and I had to stop before I saw any other shit), but it's beyond my control. But my eyes roll super hard when I see some vegans on my FB feed sharing shit that is basically saying "If you like burgers then you're a fucking murderous asshole". I'm not against sticking to a healthier and "greener" diet for my own sake. But I'm not going to stop eating burgers or chicken or steaks. They're fucking delicious (when cooked and prepared right) and that's that, and if you have a problem with that, then get the fuck out my face.
As a stoner, it's bullshit that I'd be denied a job for failing a drug test just because I smoke weed. Before you tell me, "Then just stop smoking weed!", 1) fuck you, and 2) I am perfectly capable of handling tasks when I'm stoned better than most people. That's not to say I smoke weed and go to work, obviously. I'm just saying that what I do on my off time shouldn't affect someone else's decision to hire me. Drug tests should remain applicable to people on harder drugs. I won't be tweaking if I don't smoke a blunt. I'm just eager to roll one up after I get home from the retail hell I'm currently subjected to.
Sometimes I wish we didn't have internet and just had an alternate way of obtaining the information we need. The internet is full of distractions and is more often than not used as an outlet for stupidity. Everyone has an opinion that needs to be "better" than the other person's opinion. If you're not following this thing, you're wrong. If you are following that thing, you're super wrong. Also these "advances" in technology have paved the way for internet celebrities. Yes, this is basically a railing against internet celebrities. Fuck you, King Bach. Fuck you, Brittany Furlan. Fuck you, Curtis Lepore, Jenna Marbles, Pewdiepie and all these other sentient jizz stains that got big off of UTTER FUCKING STUPIDITY. I MEAN, "BUT DAT BACKFLIP THO"?? AND NOW THAT MOTHERFUCKER IS IN MOVIES AND TV SHOWS N SHIT???? FUCK YOU MILLENIAL INTERNET CULTURE. FUCK YOU RIGHT IN THE ASS.
Also I think mustard is the worst condiment.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 565
Likes: 252
|
Post by oneflyr on Mar 9, 2017 21:50:51 GMT
I honestly think Moonlight is pretty crappy, and a big part of the reason it's so universally acclaimed is our current political climate, and its ''relevant'', oh so important themes. Maybe I would have liked it if it had been an hour or so longer (a la boyhood) and focused more on Chiron's actual life instead of solely portraying him as a victim of his own circumstances, with absolutely no real defining traits to speak of. I think Barry Jenkins tries really hard to get the audience to feel sympathy for him through lazy, cliche narrative devices (bullying, drugs, poverty, etc.) and I simply don't buy it. I know it's a powerful experience for many, but for me it's totally empty, the equivalent of shallow misery porn. And that ending is such a shitty cop out.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 9, 2017 22:02:35 GMT
I honestly think Moonlight is pretty crappy, and a big part of the reason it's so universally acclaimed is our current political climate, and its ''relevant'', oh so important themes. Maybe I would have liked it if it had been an hour or so longer (a la boyhood) and focused more on Chiron's actual life instead of solely portraying him as a victim of his own circumstances, with absolutely no real defining traits to speak of. I think Barry Jenkins tries really hard to get the audience to feel sympathy for him through lazy, cliche narrative devices (bullying, drugs, poverty, etc.) and I simply don't buy it. I know it's a powerful experience for many, but for me it's totally empty, the equivalent of shallow misery porn. And that ending is such a shitty cop out. do you think political climate in general is not a legitimate reason to like a film? i'm not trying to antagonize; i didn't care for the film either and i think a large part of why it was acclaimed was because of the reasons you suggest, but i don't think there's anything wrong with this per se.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 565
Likes: 252
|
Post by oneflyr on Mar 9, 2017 22:29:40 GMT
I honestly think Moonlight is pretty crappy, and a big part of the reason it's so universally acclaimed is our current political climate, and its ''relevant'', oh so important themes. Maybe I would have liked it if it had been an hour or so longer (a la boyhood) and focused more on Chiron's actual life instead of solely portraying him as a victim of his own circumstances, with absolutely no real defining traits to speak of. I think Barry Jenkins tries really hard to get the audience to feel sympathy for him through lazy, cliche narrative devices (bullying, drugs, poverty, etc.) and I simply don't buy it. I know it's a powerful experience for many, but for me it's totally empty, the equivalent of shallow misery porn. And that ending is such a shitty cop out. do you think political climate in general is not a legitimate reason to like a film? i'm not trying to antagonize; i didn't care for the film either and i think a large part of why it was acclaimed was because of the reasons you suggest, but i don't think there's anything wrong with this per se. Nah, I think it's totally valid, of course, art doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's always a reflexion of society and current trends, context and all that jazz, etc... but when it's pretty much all it has going for it, it becomes more of a baity, opportunistic endeavor, than something that feels like a real, genuine achievement. I think the real challenge is transcending and acquiring that timeless quality that sets pretty much all great films apart ( i.e. Blow Up is a film made in 1966 capturing a very specific time and place that still feels relevant and powerful today, 60 years later)... will we think the same of Moonlight decades from now? I don't think so, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on Mar 9, 2017 23:15:13 GMT
Political and sexual discussions make me exceedingly uncomfortable. I'm just not a political person period, and I hate hearing about it period. And sexual things, well, I was raised thinking such things should be private... I hate gossip. I love sentimental films.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Mar 9, 2017 23:32:28 GMT
I had to reply, because surely one's stance on morality is not an opinion? If you believe there is no such thing as objective morality, you, I assume would consider it fact? Or, if you believe there is no such thing as objectivity other than in science, is there still a true concept of an unpopular opinion?
I understand that there may be no such thing as objective morality, say, if a human were born in a white room and were left to grow to adulthood with no external influence, not only from other humans but from any other thing. We all know what Darwin discovered about the truth of what life is after all. But we all live in an actual world which has been shaped by an awful long period of history and I think that shapes what might have begun as subjective into objective rules. There are some aspects of morality where if a person believed differently it would not be their subjective belief, but some sort of problem in the functioning of the brain.
Although you could still argue morality as subjective in a theoretical sense, it simply isn't the reality we exist in. In real life I think you could easily argue some morals are subjective - it is clear how different many of our (sometimes core) beliefs are. But is that the same as morals? To suggest that only a subjective sense of morality prevents our acceptance of something such as mass murder is one of the reasons philosophy (not that I know anything at all about philosophy - my sole knowledge is that I read some things written by philosophers about maths which were, quite frankly, unscientific meaningless twaddle* all too often) can make me roll my eyes.
And on the other side of the coin, I think I could argue back that we all have a sense of objective morality in a theoretical sense. As in we all know what acceptance and kindness to all others is and it is a thing which is a part of what being a human is - the ability to reason in this way... if we don't feel we or others need to adhere to it, I'd say it isn't to do with morality, but other overriding drives which skew an underlying morality which though it may be a thing we deviate from a little in some areas or massively in other areas, it is true and is not a thing formed by upbringing or religion and so on.
I don't know. This is not something I have ever thought about. I guess, annoyingly, the controversial statement made me think about it. But partly because it is speaking about something with is either fact or not and not, I would say an opinion...
I have many unpopular opinions about films:
I agree with a few folks here that Moonlight is not that good. I just felt so little from it. It is incredibly beautiful in a cinematographically sense and in terms of the entirety of its cast, but I found it pretty empty. I have no problem with it winning awards as to be honest loads of films I hate win awards. Even if I was very disappointed in Moonlight personally, the reasons behind it being successful, I am behind, so it is a good thing.
I think Daniel Day Lewis is overrated in a way where I just can't understand it. I think he overacts which suits some roles but not all and that he takes his craft way too seriously given the fact I have not personally ever seen him give an emotionally resonant or affecting performance. (I have also not seen loads of his films... because what I have seen hasn't inspired me to want to.)
Some films I hated which many love: There Will Be Blood The Tree of Life (less so than the others on this list though) Sicario Hacksaw Ridge The Man Who Knew Infinity The Last of the Mohicans Youth High Rise 28 Weeks Later
* Ironically, that description also fits my attempt to try to reason that discussion/argument out in my head/fingers too! hahaha! *hides*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 23:47:13 GMT
- A huge amount of parents shouldn't be.
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring "sleeping around" to being in a relationship.
- The vast majority of people are unbelievably close minded.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 10, 2017 0:02:23 GMT
- A huge amount of parents shouldn't be. - The vast majority of people are unbelievably close minded. I don't think those two are all that controversial
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 10, 2017 0:02:53 GMT
I had to reply, because surely one's stance on morality is not an opinion? If you believe there is no such thing as objective morality, you, I assume would consider it fact? Or, if you believe there is no such thing as objectivity other than in science, is there still a true concept of an unpopular opinion? I understand that there may be no such thing as objective morality, say, if a human were born in a white room and were left to grow to adulthood with no external influence, not only from other humans but from any other thing. We all know what Darwin discovered about the truth of what life is after all. But we all live in an actual world which has been shaped by an awful long period of history and I think that shapes what might have begun as subjective into objective rules. There are some aspects of morality where if a person believed differently it would not be their subjective belief, but some sort of problem in the functioning of the brain. Although you could still argue morality as subjective in a theoretical sense, it simply isn't the reality we exist in. In real life I think you could easily argue some morals are subjective - it is clear how different many of our (sometimes core) beliefs are. But is that the same as morals? To suggest that only a subjective sense of morality prevents our acceptance of something such as mass murder is one of the reasons philosophy (not that I know anything at all about philosophy - my sole knowledge is that I read some things written by philosophers about maths which were, quite frankly, unscientific meaningless twaddle* all too often) can make me roll my eyes. And on the other side of the coin, I think I could argue back that we all have a sense of objective morality in a theoretical sense. As in we all know what acceptance and kindness to all others is and it is a thing which is a part of what being a human is - the ability to reason in this way... if we don't feel we or others need to adhere to it, I'd say it isn't to do with morality, but other overriding drives which skew an underlying morality which though it may be a thing we deviate from a little in some areas or massively in other areas, it is true and is not a thing formed by upbringing or religion and so on. I don't know. This is not something I have ever thought about. I guess, annoyingly, the controversial statement made me think about it. But partly because it is speaking about something with is either fact or not and not, I would say an opinion... It's always a bit redundant to get involved in these type of arguments, but for me at least the idea of objective morality can't really be for a few reasons. For one, morality is an abstract concept that exists only in the form of human thought and attribution. It isn't something empirical that can be found among non-humans the way that we can observe, say, gravity. Morality only exists when a person steps in and interprets something as moral or immoral. With regard to something like mass murder, there's always the ability to skew it into something that fits into someone's morals. So mass murder can be seen as war or battle (even if it's lopsided to the point of essentially being mass murder), or you could paint the people being murdered as evil that need to be punished so mass murder can be seen as the death penalty. As a species, we always give some relativist thinking to our morality: times when people think killing is okay, stealing is okay, etc. As for the comment about functioning of the brain, that doesn't have to do with morals so much as it has to do with emotions. If someone has an inability to feel empathy (which can be objectively observed with brain activity), for example, they may have antisocial personality disorder and that will skew the way in which they behave, but the diagnosed problem has to do with emotion rather than morality. And when it comes to emotions and how they relate to morality, we're dealing with all sorts of subjectivity there.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Mar 10, 2017 0:32:37 GMT
In response to mikediastavrone96 - I guess I see genuine morality as more fundamental than that. Mass murder in battle, I would hope everyone would agree as a theoretical concept is morally wrong. It doesn't mean that every soldier who kills someone in battle is at all a bad human or anything as of course we can reason further than the inherent truth of the moral and understand other circumstances. Same way most people would excuse theft in some contexts, and might even personally indulge in it in contexts they simultaneously understand are morally wrong, but we still know the basic truth that theft is wrong. Regarding the brain, I would say personality disorders far are deeper than affecting emotion. They affect understanding and processing and a person's entire experience of the world. I don't think a personality disorder affects morality per se. I mean, maybe what I am trying to say is that I think morality is an intellectual more than an emotional thing (only pertaining to us as humans, obviously.) So if the brain is not working in an ordinary way I can understand a person not understanding morals. Emotion plays into what we do and how we react to things... but I feel morals are at a truer level. Not in an absolute *if aliens landed* or even *rabbits should follow them too* way, but for us, as humans. Errrr.............. *shovel scrapes the ground* Anyway, you're right - this is the kind of a minified that once you step into the quagmire I know for sure I don't have the intellectual tools to find the rope ladder to get myself out, hahaha! (Where's the blushing smiley when you need one?!) I am deep in some pit right now, for sure. My first paragraph has just made me laugh because I absolutely detested Hacksaw Ridge but I now kind of feel as though my paragraph could have been part of the reasoning in the film. END OF DAYS! GO TO SLEEP, ME!
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 10, 2017 0:48:06 GMT
Regarding the brain, I would say personality disorders far are deeper than affecting emotion. They affect understanding and processing and a person's entire experience of the world. I don't think a personality disorder affects morality per se. I mean, maybe what I am trying to say is that I think morality is an intellectual more than an emotional thing (only pertaining to us as humans, obviously.) So if the brain is not working in an ordinary way I can understand a person not understanding morals. Emotion plays into what we do and how we react to things... but I feel morals are at a truer level. Errrr.............. *shovel scrapes the ground* As you said, these sort of discussions lead to quagmires where it gets tough to murk through all the muck so I'm only going to reply to this portion. As somebody currently studying psychology, when I was talking about mental disorders affecting emotional functioning, that wasn't to dismiss other cognitive functions as not being part of the equation but those cognitive functions all tie to emotion in some way. Our reasoning is not separate from emotion, they're inextricably linked at a fundamental level so if you remove one it damages the other. As it pertains to morality, though, it does have a largely emotional basis. Someone could write down a sentence without feeling, but they wouldn't be able to have a sense of morality (aside from some self-centered morality, if we're really considering that its own moral code) without feeling. Anyone, to clear up my own stance here, I'm not supporting some moral nihilism here or something (in fact I hate moral nihilism). My reasoning for saying morality is not objective just has to do with my inability to find a compelling argument that morals are absolute, especially since it is an abstract concept always up to some level of human interpretation or reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 10, 2017 1:28:11 GMT
Since I accidentally took over the thread by talking about morality, I'll fire some film-related unpopular opinions quickly. I'm more than open to expanding on these opinions more if anybody wants me to. Alright, here we go: Not a fan of Woody Allen or Terrence Malick. The former I find flat-out annoying a lot of the time, the latter I hold in higher regard as a major talent with great influence but he just hasn't made a film that really connected with me yet though I am still willing to give whatever he makes a view. For the most part, Godard is more interesting to talk about (shout out to Film Socialism) than he is to watch. Aside from Polytechnique and Arrival (and to a lesser extent Incendies), I don't care for Denis Villeneuve. He's got a very good sense of craft, but I have major reservations with the narratives of his other films. Lars von Trier is a total oddity to me. He's got talent, he has had some good ideas in terms of technique or motivations, but most of his films are just so terribly uninteresting to me. And then he makes the great Melancholia only to then follow it up with Nymphomaniac, a terribly droll and indulgent exercise in him getting to complain about the same things he's been complaining about his entire career only this time with the "edgy" addition of unsimulated sex digitally composited in. Speaking of droll, I hated The Lobster. What a total waste of a unique and interesting concept. Speaking of things I don't like with good concepts: The Blair Witch Project. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is not a good movie, but it's not irredeemable garbage either. The Batman stuff is largely good, and there are ideas there that are interesting and could work if you reform the structure of the film and shape up some of the characterizations. With that said, Man of Steel and Suicide Squad are irredeemable garbage (not unpopular opinions, but figured I'd throw it in). Amélie is not my bag. Ex Machina is good and all, but man is that third act a total disappointment. Way to take the most uninteresting route once again, Alex Garland, and it really doesn't help that almost every idea in the film is covered by either Her or Under the Skin. Also, Alicia Vikander's performance in it is good, but I find Gleeson, Isaac, and Mizuno all more interesting in their parts. I don't like The Cat in the Hat, but it's strangely fascinating to me how people all read that book, got together, and thought that what they were making could honestly be considered in line with Dr. Seuss's work. It's almost astonishing in how creatively terrible it is, and that leaves me unopposed to watching it when it's brought up with friends. Speaking of Mike Myers, I like So I Married an Axe Murderer. I like The Cable Guy and Last Action Hero a good bit, especially the latter.
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Mar 10, 2017 2:19:12 GMT
Not only is it reasonable for personal politics, philosophy, and religious views to influence one's opinion on a film, but also, these factors should do just that. Calling a film "manipulative" isn't critizing it. At least currently, vulgar auteurism comes across to me as a poor excuse to like generally subpar action films, justifying insecurities within one's taste. I do however think some films like Watchmen and Hardcore Henry, which could be considered vulg aut. are quite good. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith also is good. I do not care much for them but The Avengers and other Marvel Cinematic Universe films collectively are incredibly important on Western culture and society, much more than Citizen Kane ever was. No, not for films, but for society. Google, Apple, The Big Bang Theory, and The Avengers were all major players in the paradigm shift of nerd culture being a niche to prominitely taking over mainstream culture to the point that nerdiness has become the mainstream cool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 3:05:34 GMT
modern cinema, and I mean the "art" films and not the blockbusters, have only become better, more accessible and successfully experimental by time.
grouping of people, in any damn manner, is the worst fuckin' thing ever thought up by humanity (tho this one would be more controversial in 40s or something)
cursing doesn't mean shit. we created it, so if we want, we can remove it. it shouldn't be taken as a big deal.
can't say anything about politics lol
pizza is overrated as fuck.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 10, 2017 5:02:04 GMT
Islam is no more or less dangerous than Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Mar 10, 2017 7:18:55 GMT
Speaking of things I don't like with good concepts: The Blair Witch Project. tbh this is not okay
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Mar 10, 2017 7:52:59 GMT
I'll leave the morality discussion where it is now too. But thank you for replying to be mikediastavrone96 - much to ponder.
The subsequent film post reminded me of some views I share though.
I am not a fan of most of the Woody Allen films I have seen. I find myself sitting watching them, feeling increasingly irritated because it feels to me as though Allen is almost screaming "Look at my film! Look how clever I am! Look how well I understand people! Look how clever is their dialogue!" yet, I always find Allen's characters to not behave like real people. Which isn't to say his films hold no interest, but that there is a disconnect which makes them feel false to me. As in, at the same time I can almost hear him telling me how well he understands people, I often don't feel that he actually has. And I always feel like Allen is looking down on me: as though the subtext is "I am better than you. The only reason you could possibly not adore my work would be due to your own inferiority." I can't fully explain why I find Allen's work often so irritating in fact.
I also hated The Lobster. It is a sore point as I was hoping to adore it. Before watching I was already in love with the concept and Ben Whishaw is one of my most favourite actors. Again (to a far stronger degree), people in it do not act like real humans at which point, for me, without any good reason for such, your film loses all value. It didn't make me laugh once and the fact that it intentionally makes it's characters act in an affected, irritating, non-emotional way the whole time automatically removes all point that the context of the film ought to be filled to spilling with. I dislike The Lobster so much, I find it hard to understand how other people could love it, though I know they do.
I always want to love Jim Jarmusch films because I really do love some of them. But the desire he seems to possess to incessantly convey how cool he is, for me seems to be getting worse with age and ruins what, without the layer of ... what is often I feel irrelevant "I am/this character is so cool" might have been much more affecting films.
I love when something I love wins an awards, and of course I love films, however I find awards a ludicrous waste of money where people who are already given more privilege than they merit are held up even higher and I think the world and Hollywood and the film industry in general would be a better place if we stopped awarding people for subjective art entirely.
|
|
|
Post by kellysassafras on Mar 11, 2017 4:34:52 GMT
I am not a fan of most of the Woody Allen films I have seen. I find myself sitting watching them, feeling increasingly irritated because it feels to me as though Allen is almost screaming "Look at my film! Look how clever I am! Look how well I understand people! Look how clever is their dialogue!" yet, I always find Allen's characters to not behave like real people. Which isn't to say his films hold no interest, but that there is a disconnect which makes them feel false to me. As in, at the same time I can almost hear him telling me how well he understands people, I often don't feel that he actually has. And I always feel like Allen is looking down on me: as though the subtext is "I am better than you. The only reason you could possibly not adore my work would be due to your own inferiority." I can't fully explain why I find Allen's work often so irritating in fact. I actually really mostly dislike Woody Allen's work bc of the same reason. The only real stand out of his stuff for me is The Purple Rose of Cairo, which along with Midnight in Paris, are markedly different from his other work. Purple Rose is probably in my top 30 movies or so, but I don't even care about Annie Hall that much, and I really really didn't like Manhattan.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Mar 11, 2017 5:38:26 GMT
I like The Cable Guy and Last Action Hero a good bit, especially the latter. Self-referential movies from the late 90s to today can only dream of being as clever and ahead of the game as Last Action Hero.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Mar 11, 2017 5:41:26 GMT
pizza is overrated as fuck. I know the idea of the thread is to say unpopular things, but really, saying something like this should be an immediate one-way ticket to Hell.
|
|
mrx2848
New Member
Posts: 45
Likes: 10
|
Post by mrx2848 on Mar 11, 2017 6:54:34 GMT
'Bridge of Spies' is at least as good as 'Spotlight'.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Mar 11, 2017 16:48:51 GMT
Nah, I think it's totally valid, of course, art doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's always a reflexion of society and current trends, context and all that jazz, etc... but when it's pretty much all it has going for it, it becomes more of a baity, opportunistic endeavor, than something that feels like a real, genuine achievement. I think the real challenge is transcending and acquiring that timeless quality that sets pretty much all great films apart ( i.e. Blow Up is a film made in 1966 capturing a very specific time and place that still feels relevant and powerful today, 60 years later)... will we think the same of Moonlight decades from now? I don't think so, but who knows. That's interesting because I've seen more or less the opposite argument: All the politics getting in the way of the beauty of Moonlight (the argument admittedly sounded kind of dumb the way it was presented already though). Personally I can't comment on it because I have not seen the film and I'm only semi-interested. I mean 12 Years a Slave also has 96 on Metacritic and it was a largely unoriginal bore (which is a Shame because that movie was quite good - sorry about the ridiculously bad pun but it wrote itself). I could see how the same inflation could happen to Moonlight (I mean 96 for 12 YAS is fucking ridiculous). If they want so badly to praise and award movies for racial commentary, they could just dig up White Dog and give it all to an actually inventive and provocative film (White Dog is in dire need of critical re-evaluation anyway).
|
|