Vague much? I lay out a fairly in-depth criticism of the film and you don't touch a detail. Poor form. And please don't reduce this to an argument of subjectivity and art because that's a pretty worthless statement in dissection and critique. I'm not sure I understand the pot shot at South Park either because a high level of realization and thematic layering is actually present in that film.
Which is part of the inherent flaw of filmmakers these days, art is a mere after-thought which is something I briefly touched on in terms of cinematic progressionalism.Braaq said:
Line said:
I like good films but much of it is based on what a film is trying to be. I'll never give Dirty Work a 0 and claim its trying to be the next 2001: ASO but at the same time I won't be giving it a 10 either.
It's a bit annoying and arrogant to make a request, on more than one occasion, for an explanation as to my dislike of a film and then to dismiss those efforts entirely without counterpoint. You offer no frame of reference to your own knowledge or what characteristics in film you find are most important or even a preference of subjectivity or objectivity, though it's fairly clear you prefer the prior. I'm not sure why you feel there's a need to openly vocalize a shallow opinion without discussing the film or your take on it but to merely disagree (I realize I often share my opinion on any given movie without reason but, to be fair, and always willing to justify it). Believe it or not, something can be taken out of the give and take of discussion and out of the works themselves for that matter.I do not have to be anymore than vague other than I do not agree, is that not ok? Last time I checked I can agree or disagree and I do not have to give details
I'm not sure if the latter part of this sentence was a shot at me but I could care less regardless. I'm pretty sure the entire forum is well aware of my having a social life.Braaq said:
Braaq said:
I separated these because originally I was going to respond to them individually but decided to include my response in one entry, though didn't want your individual points to mesh. I've already discussed and gave an insight as to what the trappings are of professional criticism as there are contractual bonds and other pressuring influences that they must endure. This can be accepted or ignored by you, I could care less truthfully, but it's a certain nonetheless. As for the opinion of the average person, there's not a statistic I could care less about. The average person or people are idiots and put Meet the Spartans as #1 at the box-office earlier this year after doing so with Epic Movie the year before. As for what I've mentioned previously regarding stagnancy in cinematic betterment, all those statements stand. Without bold new strokes, or well-adapted versions of older ones, movies will reach a stand still as far as originality and quality are concerned. Something else that should be noted is that not all filmmakers are idiots and I'd group Ridley Scott as one that falls into the "not mindless" variety. These men and women have definitive goals that they hope to follow through on in creating a new motion picture and its the job (and joy!) of the serious cinephile to interpret, dissect, and analyze whether or not these objective qualities are met. If you feel for a second that the aforementioned criticisms aren't something that almost all directors mentally tackle while making a film you're severely lacking an essential understanding on what goes into making a motion picture.Braaq said:In many people's (including myself and many other critics and film makers) would disagree with you.
But sorry I brought it up, arguing is pointless because I cant even get through half of your posts 
I am friends with you on myspace and facebook.. I am very aware of your social life. 
Its very hard to read your posts Line
His posts are generally well written
