Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 27, 2018 2:32:53 GMT
moonman159 braver than john mc cain stop
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 2:36:56 GMT
I'm torn here, because usually I'd be happy to see some shade being thrown at Logan, as I feel like I'm one of the few people who didn't care for it that much, at least to the point of thinking its more than average, but then the criticism he's throwing at it is so snobby I refuse to get on board. Also, considering some of the shit he's been in and probably promoted positively, with a liars shit eating grin on his face; well this just makes him look like a hypocritical jackass. I want to like your comment but at the same time punch you in the face. Such a conundrum. YO MOM DON'T WORRY I'M OWNING THOSE DIRTY LIBS BY UH HYPING UP THAT MOVIE WHERE THE MAN HAS BEARD AND ALSO KNIVES IN BETWEEN HIS FINGERS
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 2:41:52 GMT
Ultimately, and I mean this seriously, taste is subjective to a point. If we're sitting around and you want to tell me that Naruse is your fave director, that Melville is your fave director, that Godard is your fave director, etc, that's fine. If you want to sit down and say that the Russo Brothers are your fave directors then there is 0% chance I won't be telling you you're a fucking dumbass. And loving that nonsense is cool too, just don't get upset when people say it's dumb. You already won, your movies make 2 billy no matter what, while our movies desperately try to make their budgets back on streaming services. Truly just stfu.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 2:43:15 GMT
Also um sorry but elitism is underrated
MAKE AMERICA ELITIST AGAIN
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 27, 2018 2:47:05 GMT
Also um sorry but elitism is underrated MAKE AMERICA ELITIST AGAIN normies can't even elitist properly just call someone a pleb and move on none of this objective shit
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 2:49:34 GMT
Also um sorry but elitism is underrated MAKE AMERICA ELITIST AGAIN normies can't even elitist properly just call someone a pleb and move on none of this objective shit yeah legit you read about the good old days where even the plebs were causing a ruckus during live music performances, absolutely tearing things up in the pit, and now you just got the mouth breathers saying "yo dude, isn't the end of Infinity War kinda like the finale of Satantango" wrong generation bro
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 27, 2018 2:50:38 GMT
I think some people are missing that this doesn't necessarily have to do with superhero movies specifically... like I said in my OP, if you hate Marvel then good for you, I really don't give a fuck. It's one thing to dislike certain genres, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that a particular genre is simply incapable of producing a "great" film ever, whatever that means to you.
It's like saying great science fiction films are mutually exclusive from some higher form of greatness just because they happen to feature fantastical elements. It's bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 2:53:03 GMT
I think some people are missing that this doesn't necessarily have to do with superhero movies specifically... like I said in my OP, if you hate Marvel then good for you, I really don't give a fuck. It's one thing to dislike certain genres, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that a particular genre is simply incapable of producing a "great" film ever, whatever that means to you. It's like saying great science fiction films are mutually exclusive from some higher form of greatness just because they happen to feature fantastical elements. It's bullshit. It's almost like there's a specific context in which this genre is assessed and there are parameters that are known to exist and as rational human beings we can sit back and think about how a development has occurred and predict what its future might look like. You sound a bit like Burt Reynolds thinking about cinema in Boogie Nights
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2018 2:53:23 GMT
I think some people are missing that this doesn't necessarily have to do with superhero movies specifically... like I said in my OP, if you hate Marvel then good for you, I really don't give a fuck. It's one thing to dislike certain genres, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that a particular genre is simply incapable of producing a "great" film ever, whatever that means to you. It's like saying great science fiction films are mutually exclusive from some higher form of greatness just because they happen to feature fantastical elements. It's bullshit. I think you're reading too much into what Hawke said.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 2:55:31 GMT
LIKE I'M PRETTY SURE THE ONLY REASON SUPERHERO MOVIES GET MADE FUN OF IS BECAUSE... UH... "THEY HAPPEN TO FEATURE FANASTICAL ELEMENTS." ALL BELOVED MOVIES ARE STRICTLY REALIST AND FEATURE NO SUCH ELEMENTS AND AT THE END OF THE DAY...
IT'S
BULLSHIT
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Aug 27, 2018 2:59:07 GMT
Ultimately, and I mean this seriously, taste is subjective to a point. If we're sitting around and you want to tell me that Naruse is your fave director, that Melville is your fave director, that Godard is your fave director, etc, that's fine. If you want to sit down and say that the Russo Brothers are your fave directors then there is 0% chance I won't be telling you you're a fucking dumbass. And loving that nonsense is cool too, just don't get upset when people say it's dumb. You already won, your movies make 2 billy no matter what, while our movies desperately try to make their budgets back on streaming services. Truly just stfu. That isn't what anyone is saying. People are taking offense at Hawke's comment because he implies a refusal to acknowledge that an entire genre can be capable of being art. That's all. I don't even think Logan is that good. Like Hawke says, it's a good superhero movie. But he's implying that a superhero film is unable to reach the heights of "true artists" and is unwilling to see how the genre can enhance the themes of a story.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 3:01:06 GMT
AS A FILM HISTORIAN I CAN AFFIRM THAT FILMS LIKE STALKER, OR THAT 2001 SILLINESS, OR YA KNOW ALMOST ANY GREAT FILM, IS INUNDATED WITH "FANTASTICAL ELEMENTS" (I, AS A SUPREME GENTLEMAN, PREFER MY MADE UP DREAM ARTS TO BE OF THE MOST SINCERE REALISM), AND I REJECT ALL OF THEM. IN THEIR STEAD I AFFIRM THE TRUTH OF THAT MOVIE ABOUT THE PANTHER, WHO BY NO CHOICE OF HIS OWN, HAPPENS TO BE NOIR.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 3:03:22 GMT
Ultimately, and I mean this seriously, taste is subjective to a point. If we're sitting around and you want to tell me that Naruse is your fave director, that Melville is your fave director, that Godard is your fave director, etc, that's fine. If you want to sit down and say that the Russo Brothers are your fave directors then there is 0% chance I won't be telling you you're a fucking dumbass. And loving that nonsense is cool too, just don't get upset when people say it's dumb. You already won, your movies make 2 billy no matter what, while our movies desperately try to make their budgets back on streaming services. Truly just stfu. That isn't what anyone is saying. People are taking offense at Hawke's comment because he implies a refusal to acknowledge that an entire genre can be capable of being art. That's all. I don't even think Logan is that good. Like Hawke says, it's a good superhero movie. But he's implying that a superhero film is unable to reach the heights of "true artists" and is unwilling to see how the genre can enhance the themes of a story. The genre excludes any notion of a film produced independently. They are all made under the guidance of a suit. You can argue that those movies conceptually could participate in good art but that's not how the world works. You cannot make one of those movies without being under the umbrella of a corporation that precludes any notion that couldn't be assessed as being potentially pocket stuffing.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 27, 2018 3:03:25 GMT
Ultimately, and I mean this seriously, taste is subjective to a point. If we're sitting around and you want to tell me that Naruse is your fave director, that Melville is your fave director, that Godard is your fave director, etc, that's fine. If you want to sit down and say that the Russo Brothers are your fave directors then there is 0% chance I won't be telling you you're a fucking dumbass. And loving that nonsense is cool too, just don't get upset when people say it's dumb. You already won, your movies make 2 billy no matter what, while our movies desperately try to make their budgets back on streaming services. Truly just stfu. That isn't what anyone is saying. People are taking offense at Hawke's comment because he implies a refusal to acknowledge that an entire genre can be capable of being art. That's all. I don't even think Logan is that good. Like Hawke says, it's a good superhero movie. But he's implying that a superhero film is unable to reach the heights of "true artists" and is unwilling to see how the genre can enhance the themes of a story. do u think we'll ever get a lesbian porn as good as City of Godcompletely 100% earnest question
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 27, 2018 3:03:54 GMT
I think some people are missing that this doesn't necessarily have to do with superhero movies specifically... like I said in my OP, if you hate Marvel then good for you, I really don't give a fuck. It's one thing to dislike certain genres, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that a particular genre is simply incapable of producing a "great" film ever, whatever that means to you. It's like saying great science fiction films are mutually exclusive from some higher form of greatness just because they happen to feature fantastical elements. It's bullshit. I think you're reading too much into what Hawke said. Hawke literally says: "[Logan] still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands" which to me implies that part of his assessment is based on genre elements. It'd be the same thing if he said that he didn't think Blade Runner is a great film because it still involves robots or something...
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 3:06:18 GMT
That isn't what anyone is saying. People are taking offense at Hawke's comment because he implies a refusal to acknowledge that an entire genre can be capable of being art. That's all. I don't even think Logan is that good. Like Hawke says, it's a good superhero movie. But he's implying that a superhero film is unable to reach the heights of "true artists" and is unwilling to see how the genre can enhance the themes of a story. do u think we'll ever get a lesbian porn as good as City of Godcompletely 100% earnest question have you seen City of God recently? it fuckin sucks dude
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2018 3:07:06 GMT
I think you're reading too much into what Hawke said. Hawke literally says: "[Logan] still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands" which to me implies that part of his assessment is based on genre elements. It'd be the same thing if he said that he didn't think Blade Runner is a great film because it still involves robots or something... Probably because he would view Blade Runner - one of the most critically acclaimed films ever made - as something great, and stuff like Logan to be silly. Film Socialism has already done a good job explaining why suggesting his preference is wrong (or even remotely outlandish) is just crazy talk. I don't know why people get so defensive over these superhero flicks.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 27, 2018 3:08:40 GMT
I think some people are missing that this doesn't necessarily have to do with superhero movies specifically... like I said in my OP, if you hate Marvel then good for you, I really don't give a fuck. It's one thing to dislike certain genres, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that a particular genre is simply incapable of producing a "great" film ever, whatever that means to you. It's like saying great science fiction films are mutually exclusive from some higher form of greatness just because they happen to feature fantastical elements. It's bullshit. i can't speak for moonman (i'm not sure moonman himself can speak for moonman), but past defending him because i agree with his statement, i can defend the subjective grounds he has to say something like that. i don't like musicals. there is a strong ass possibility i will never see a musical i like more than Barry Lyndon. there's a strong possibility i will never see a big budget disaster film i give higher than an 8/10. the same goes for everyone on this board and some kind of film - do you think comicman is ever going to be a proponent of the structuralist film movement? you're right, it is like saying that. and if hawke made it known that he's speaking about objectivism or whatever then yeah, he's a dumbass for that. however i don't usually like to assume that of people as we all make far-reaching statements ("_____ is the best film of the year") even though some of us are subjectivists. however, hawke may just really fucking hate superhero movies, for any number of reasons.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 27, 2018 3:09:23 GMT
do u think we'll ever get a lesbian porn as good as City of Godcompletely 100% earnest question have you seen City of God recently? it fuckin sucks dude not in the last year or so but i'll never not love it t b h
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 27, 2018 3:16:51 GMT
Hawke literally says: "[Logan] still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands" which to me implies that part of his assessment is based on genre elements. It'd be the same thing if he said that he didn't think Blade Runner is a great film because it still involves robots or something... Probably because he would view Blade Runner - one of the most critically acclaimed films ever made - as something great, and stuff like Logan to be silly. Film Socialism has already done a good job explaining why suggesting his preference is wrong (or even remotely outlandish) is just crazy talk. I don't know why people get so defensive over these superhero flicks. But that begs the question of why he thinks it's silly. Hawke isn't here to expand on his thoughts, so I have no choice but to work from what he actually is suggesting in the statement, which just may be poorly phrased. Like I said, I don't care about his preferences, and this doesn't necessarily have to do with superhero movies specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Aug 27, 2018 3:22:01 GMT
Hawke literally says: "[Logan] still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands" which to me implies that part of his assessment is based on genre elements. It'd be the same thing if he said that he didn't think Blade Runner is a great film because it still involves robots or something... Probably because he would view Blade Runner - one of the most critically acclaimed films ever made - as something great, and stuff like Logan to be silly. Film Socialism has already done a good job explaining why suggesting his preference is wrong (or even remotely outlandish) is just crazy talk. I don't know why people get so defensive over these superhero flicks.Because these nerds have been engineered to think cbms are the best thing since sliced bread.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 27, 2018 3:36:07 GMT
That isn't what anyone is saying. People are taking offense at Hawke's comment because he implies a refusal to acknowledge that an entire genre can be capable of being art. That's all. I don't even think Logan is that good. Like Hawke says, it's a good superhero movie. But he's implying that a superhero film is unable to reach the heights of "true artists" and is unwilling to see how the genre can enhance the themes of a story. The genre excludes any notion of a film produced independently. They are all made under the guidance of a suit. You can argue that those movies conceptually could participate in good art but that's not how the world works. You cannot make one of those movies without being under the umbrella of a corporation that precludes any notion that couldn't be assessed as being potentially pocket stuffing. By that token, do we similarly dismiss the era of the Big Five studios since those films were similarly under the umbrella of a corporation? After all, no matter how much Hitchcock tried to push the boundaries of the studio system, he was still operating within it and could easily be dismissed as little more than a populist filmmaker if one takes the most stringent view on devaluing corporate films. Don't take this post to be a blanket defense of all superhero films, btw. While I enjoyed Logan a lot, it wouldn't be on my longlist of best films of the past couple years let alone of all-time so it certainly isn't threatening Bresson or Bergman. My enjoyment of it I imagine is not dissimilar from how many critics enjoy Shane, a film referenced multiple times in Logan and serves for the Western (another populist genre appealing to masculine power fantasies) what Logan aimed to do for superhero films.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 27, 2018 3:36:19 GMT
That isn't what anyone is saying. People are taking offense at Hawke's comment because he implies a refusal to acknowledge that an entire genre can be capable of being art. That's all. I don't even think Logan is that good. Like Hawke says, it's a good superhero movie. But he's implying that a superhero film is unable to reach the heights of "true artists" and is unwilling to see how the genre can enhance the themes of a story. The genre excludes any notion of a film produced independently. They are all made under the guidance of a suit. You can argue that those movies conceptually could participate in good art but that's not how the world works. You cannot make one of those movies without being under the umbrella of a corporation that precludes any notion that couldn't be assessed as being potentially pocket stuffing. But what about something like Chronicle (2012)? (not saying it's a great film because I haven't even seen it, but it's a different type of thing from Marvel) What if something similarly produced came along eventually (not necessarily found footage) that didn't adhere to the Marvel formula?
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Aug 27, 2018 3:46:59 GMT
I don't see the problem and the fact that is argued is hilarious. He's just saying that he prefers other films from certain filmmakers rather than superhero movies.
My favorite genre is romance, but specifically when it's constrained within a certain time (Le Notti Bianche, Brief Encounter, or Hawkes own Before trilogy). My least favorite genre is Western. High Noon is a great western movie. Code 46 within that genre stated above is merely average maybe a bit above. But I vastly prefer Code 46 to High Noon because that is my taste. CRUCIFY ME. But for some reason throwing a superhero movie in the mix it becomes a pretentious statement.
Also we have a ranking poll coming up of our favorite directors we do what Hawke just did all the time
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Aug 27, 2018 3:50:24 GMT
That isn't what anyone is saying. People are taking offense at Hawke's comment because he implies a refusal to acknowledge that an entire genre can be capable of being art. That's all. I don't even think Logan is that good. Like Hawke says, it's a good superhero movie. But he's implying that a superhero film is unable to reach the heights of "true artists" and is unwilling to see how the genre can enhance the themes of a story. The genre excludes any notion of a film produced independently. They are all made under the guidance of a suit. You can argue that those movies conceptually could participate in good art but that's not how the world works. You cannot make one of those movies without being under the umbrella of a corporation that precludes any notion that couldn't be assessed as being potentially pocket stuffing. Blade Runner 2049 was a megabudget sci-fi spectacular, and sure it got made because someone thought it would make money. Does that mean it isn't great art? As to Catrician: Yeah man, there probably are lesbian pornos better than City of God, because City of God is kinda bad. Edit: To be clear, I'm not talking about taste, because Hawke is implying that he isn't talking about taste. Hawke is implying that because Logan is part of a certain genre, it is inferior to films of other genres. That is *all* myself, Cake of Roth and others are taking offense at. Hell, I personally don't have a taste for superhero movies, but I absolutely believe that they are capable of being as good as anything else.
|
|