Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 82

Thread: Avatar not winner: A sign of warmongerism?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by termite View Post
    And so this leads to the question: What was it about Sam Worthington's performance that you disliked so much?
    Allow me.

    Worthington has the wide-eyed charm of the best actor in a Kansas High School. His ability to project emotional subtlety is pretty much lacking though. Tom Cruise looks like the master of emoting in comparison (perhaps Worthington should try the Cruse electric smile/clenched jaw acting dichotomy? It would be a step up from the near-ubiquitous vacuous bucolic appeal.) Plus, his unending "wooooo" yells in almost every acrobatic scene was enough to make any native cut his throat.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    If you say about the Hurth Locker as criticism: "the portrayal of characters was weak.", and then continue to praise Avatar, someone isn't judging something with one standard.
    Well, I used to believe that Oscar awarded arts.
    I see no arts in Hurt Locker. I could see better actor performances and better direction in Black Hawk Down. Notice I am comparing war movies.
    Is it that the academy is going mediocre?

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post
    Well, I used to believe that Oscar awarded arts.
    Not for a long time, but that was the general idea.
    I see no arts in Hurt Locker.
    Cool, so now you get to decide what is art?
    I could see better actor performances and better direction in Black Hawk Down. Notice I am comparing war movies.
    BHD was a very intense movie and more the regular war flick. The Hurt Locker is not a regular war flick. Maybe you like war movies where obvious bad guys get shot all the time by regular good guys and mistake that for better acting. The Hurt Locker is more of a action/suspense movie which happens to be in a war zone.

    The two movies are quite different. Both have their merit. But you might have noticed THL wasn't up against BHD, but against Avatar.

    How would you judge the acting and the portrayal of characters in Avatar?
    Is it that the academy is going mediocre?
    No, no, it went for warmongering, right?

    "My bet is that ideological warmongerism is behind this awards' choice." -AR81

    I'd say it's rather the opposite. But you're welcome to point out how THL glorified war.



    By the way, your article gives a far more convincing political reason Avatar didn't win
    Meanwhile, Fox seemed to downplay awards campaigning, letting Cameron take the lead. And what Cameron wanted to talk about was how frustrated he was that his actors, whose performances were captured by computer-generated technology, were not taken as seriously as live-action actors.While his righteousness was sincere, that didn't go over well with many real-life actors who feel threatened by the possibility that they might be replaced by synthetic performers. That backlash might have mattered, because actors are by far the largest bloc of voters in the Academy.

    Not saying this is all there is too it, but it sure sounds more credible.
    Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 03-09-2010 at 10:17 PM.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    But you're welcome to point out how THL glorified war.
    Oscar awards usually suggests the type of movie the academy likes, so it encourages to make more movies following that line. By awarding a war movie, in a time when war is causing deficit, it encourages making more war movies to keep war popular.

    The ideas of Avatar are not politically correct: Environment protection, no militarism.

    The reason why there is war, is exactly because war is popular. This movie increases popularity of war, and the award encourages to make more of that kind of movie.
    Meanwhile, Fox seemed to downplay awards campaigning, letting Cameron take the lead. And what Cameron wanted to talk about was how frustrated he was that his actors, whose performances were captured by computer-generated technology, were not taken as seriously as live-action actors.While his righteousness was sincere, that didn't go over well with many real-life actors who feel threatened by the possibility that they might be replaced by synthetic performers. That backlash might have mattered, because actors are by far the largest bloc of voters in the Academy.
    Actors can't be replaced. Either the actor is an animator or he is the puppet master making the expressions that will be passed to 3D. I find this argument silly.

    I think that if they voted against Avatar because of this reason, voters were morons who fear technology:

    100 years of Big Content fearing technology—in its own words

    Excrept:
    The anxious rhetoric around new technology is really quite shocking in its vehemence, from claims that the player piano will destroy musical taste and the "national throat" to concerns that the VCR is like the "Boston strangler" to claims that only Hollywood's premier content could make the DTV transition a success. Most of it turned out to be absurd hyperbole, but it's interesting to see just how consistent the words and the fears remain across more than a century of innovation and a host of very different devices.

  5. #35
    Just Floatin... termite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Land of Milk & Honey
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Allow me.

    Worthington has the wide-eyed charm of the best actor in a Kansas High School. His ability to project emotional subtlety is pretty much lacking though. Tom Cruise looks like the master of emoting in comparison (perhaps Worthington should try the Cruse electric smile/clenched jaw acting dichotomy? It would be a step up from the near-ubiquitous vacuous bucolic appeal.) Plus, his unending "wooooo" yells in almost every acrobatic scene was enough to make any native cut his throat.
    Thank you Lisa Simpson for the answer to a question you weren't asked.... did you want to re-read the post or did you deliberately miss the whole point about judging and entire movie and it's characters and actors without even seeing it?
    Such is Life...

  6. #36
    @AR. Funny you quoted that bit, because you didn't actually said anything about how THL glorified war.
    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post
    Oscar awards usually suggests the type of movie the academy likes, so it encourages to make more movies following that line.
    Bull. What do you base this on?
    By awarding a war movie, in a time when war is causing deficit, it encourages making more war movies to keep war popular.
    Is that a fact? I disagree. And I base it on previous winners where no such thinking was involved for whatever type of movie.
    The ideas of Avatar are not politically correct: Environment protection, no militarism.
    Oh they are quite Politically Correct. Evironment policy not Politically correct?
    The reason why there is war, is exactly because war is popular. This movie increases popularity of war, and the award encourages to make more of that kind of movie.
    No. Wrong. You say all this, but you fail to point out how THL glorified war or increases the popularity.
    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post
    Actors can't be replaced. Either the actor is an animator or he is the puppet master making the expressions that will be passed to 3D. I find this argument silly.
    Yeah. What does Cameron know?
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  7. #37
    AR, don't you think that constantly trying to equivocate people who disagree with you with "warmongers", "racists", "imperialists" &c makes you a bit of a cunt?
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  8. #38
    And also, do you think being too fucking stupid to understand the themes of the films you're talking about makes you more or less of a cunt in this scenario?
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by termite View Post
    Thank you Lisa Simpson for the answer to a question you weren't asked.... did you want to re-read the post or did you deliberately miss the whole point about judging and entire movie and it's characters and actors without even seeing it?
    Hey, Martin van Buren, thanks for the pedantry. I saw Worthington in Terminator Salvation, in which he was bland at best, and he's had a relatively short career so I'll assume that he would've jumped at the chance to play a lead in a major summer blockbuster, which means to me that his mediocre performance was not a reflection on the movie but rather his ability.

    Obviously I can't judge the entire movie--thanks for the loaded accusation, by the way--but from everything I've seen and heard it didn't look like best picture material. It won best cinematography and visual effects, so bravo for that because those were the movie's strong suits. It needed an entire portfolio to win best picture, and to me an unoriginal story and average acting hurt it.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by NGS View Post
    Hey, Martin van Buren, thanks for the pedantry. I saw Worthington in Terminator Salvation, in which he was bland at best, and he's had a relatively short career so I'll assume that he would've jumped at the chance to play a lead in a major summer blockbuster, which means to me that his mediocre performance was not a reflection on the movie but rather his ability.
    Summer? It came out in December.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    AR, don't you think that constantly trying to equivocate people who disagree with you with "warmongers", "racists", "imperialists" &c makes you a bit of a cunt?
    Who is imperialist? Since the beginning of 20th century empires have been colapsing...
    As for warmonger, I recall certain people who made a country to lose respect of the world because of unilateral action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    And also, do you think being too fucking stupid to understand the themes of the films you're talking about makes you more or less of a cunt in this scenario?
    I am sorry. I am not a standard robot to have the same standard view of reality that robots have.
    We humans are all different and have different points of view.

  12. #42
    All snowflakes are unique but not all of them are pretty; not all 'points of view' are equally interesting or presented interestingly
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  13. #43
    Just Floatin... termite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Land of Milk & Honey
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by NGS View Post
    Hey, Martin van Buren, thanks for the pedantry. I saw Worthington in Terminator Salvation, in which he was bland at best, and he's had a relatively short career so I'll assume that he would've jumped at the chance to play a lead in a major summer blockbuster, which means to me that his mediocre performance was not a reflection on the movie but rather his ability.

    Obviously I can't judge the entire movie--thanks for the loaded accusation, by the way--but from everything I've seen and heard it didn't look like best picture material. It won best cinematography and visual effects, so bravo for that because those were the movie's strong suits. It needed an entire portfolio to win best picture, and to me an unoriginal story and average acting hurt it.
    Did you even read the drivel you posted or did you just mash some keys on your keyboard to come up with that crap?

    Watch the movie FFS.
    Such is Life...

  14. #44
    I know Lewk disagrees. He thinks that whatever makes the most money is best.
    Of course. The point of a movie is entertainment. Since this is subjective you need some sort of objective measurement in determining what is considered "good."

    Are more accurate metric could be a poll of the viewing audience but it can be skewed due to a variety of factors and I'm aware of no good poll that accounts for certain factors of the general audience.

    The best metric we have is how many people parted with their hard earned money to watch it. Yes marketing can skew those numbers as well but again its the best metric we got. Everything else is almost purely subjective and just boils down to individual taste and elitism.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    All snowflakes are unique but not all of them are pretty; not all 'points of view' are equally interesting or presented interestingly
    Interestingly depends on the point of view.
    Pretty depends on the point of view.

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Of course. The point of a movie is entertainment. Since this is subjective you need some sort of objective measurement in determining what is considered "good."
    Why do we need an objective measure?
    The best metric we have is how many people parted with their hard earned money to watch it. Yes marketing can skew those numbers as well but again its the best metric we got. Everything else is almost purely subjective and just boils down to individual taste and elitism.
    That's a terrible metric for film quality. You know very little about how good a film is until you've seen it, and that's after you pay. Also, why is having an opinion elitist?
    Last edited by Unheard Of; 03-10-2010 at 09:19 PM.
    There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
    And he decides who to free and who to blame

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Of course. The point of a movie is entertainment. Since this is subjective you need some sort of objective measurement in determining what is considered "good."
    So, to measure something subjective you propose to use an objective measurement.
    Yes marketing can skew those numbers as well
    You think? I'm glad I don't have to point this out to you. And I say they skew them tremendously. Explain why the film that will create the most hype and has the most money poored into it deserves the best chance to win an Oscar.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  18. #48
    Those who shold fear to be replaced are not actors, but top models.

    VIDEO: Robot struts stuff on the catwalk


  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by termite View Post
    Thank you Lisa Simpson for the answer to a question you weren't asked.... did you want to re-read the post or did you deliberately miss the whole point about judging and entire movie and it's characters and actors without even seeing it?
    I just wanted to sound off on the mediocrity of Sam Worthington's performance. All I needed was a catalyst.

    I'm sorry, did I not adhere to some unspoken standard of sufficient kowtowing to posts that came before?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Of course. The point of a movie is entertainment. Since this is subjective you need some sort of objective measurement in determining what is considered "good."
    Which is why you will also fail in educational policy. The entire world is not quantifiable. If you tried to quantify, say, paintings, who would be the best? Whomever sold for the highest at the latest Sotheby's auction? Michael Jackson is the best popular musician ever?
    Are more accurate metric could be a poll of the viewing audience but it can be skewed due to a variety of factors and I'm aware of no good poll that accounts for certain factors of the general audience.
    This gives us most popular. I think you'll agree with me that the most popular presidents are not the best. By that metric, Bill Clinton was the best modern president. I don't think either of us believe that.

    The best metric we have is how many people parted with their hard earned money to watch it. Yes marketing can skew those numbers as well but again its the best metric we got. Everything else is almost purely subjective and just boils down to individual taste and elitism.
    OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT INDIVIDUAL TASTE. It's art, right?

    But you conflate, again, popularity with quality. OK, let's address that at a quantitative level, since that's apparently all you understand (which belies, BTW, your complete and utter incomprehension of science and the scientific method). You posit that the most popular entertainment is best. And to be most popular, such an entertainment must attract the majority of people of average intellect. This is given, right, since intelligence is a bell curve, with the large majority being "average." And thus we could have the intellectually exceptional people think that something sucked, and the intellectually average people loving it. Consequently, the people with far less intellectual acuity would dictate what is best. There's a great recipe to ensure that the world is mediocre. And, consistent with your uniform anti-intellectualism (which you mis label as anti-elitism).

    Another example: should we believe that the best NBA player is whomever gets the most all-star votes? Yao Ming! Allen Iverson! Or should we believe coaches, who have consistently rated Tim Duncan as one of the best for over a decade now? The Oscars are the equivalent of polling coaches and players, not the public.

    The people actually voting are people who are experts at filmmaking; they are the best, determined by success in that business. They are actors, producers, directors, cinematographers, FX geeks, costumers and set designers, etc. THEY say that one of the less commercially successful films this year was actually the best made film overall. THEY say that the biggest grossing film of all time, mainly due to an ungodly large budget and technical tricks, is NOT the best.

    Granted, they get lobbied by studios. The results are sometimes biased. But it is by far the best measure of quality. Sort of like I trust artists to judge what is really good art, musicians to judge what is really good music, etc. I find that the accuracy rate is much higher that way, because the evaluation is much more reasoned and educated.

    Edit: I'd actually claim the opposite of you. Oh, I acknowledge that something vastly popular is generally pretty good. Just not the best. Michael Jackson, after all, was a very good musician, even if you don't like his ouevre (and I don't, post-Motown. But the J5 made some of the best Motown recordings of the 70s). Yao Ming is a very good hoops player, but not the best.

    I'm saying that anything that appeals to a huge range of people must, of necessity, make compromises to increase its appeal. These are quality compromises. Of note, Avatar made profound compromises in story, and arguably in acting, to make a simplistic, push-button story with broader appeal. This was a good commercial decision and a bad artistic decision.

    And I'll note that it's not black and white. Did Return of the King deserve best picture? Probably not. It probably got the nod because Jackson told a story of utterly unprecedented scope, and did so with excellent, though not best, quality. For that overwhelming body of work spanning almost a decade, they gave Jackson a Best Picture Oscar. Did The Departed deserve Best Picture? I'd say not. It was another very well made Scorsese picture, but not even HIS bst film. But it was star-studded and came at the end of a storied carrier that had been to that point unrewarded. So, they give Scorsese an Oscar.

    But many of them are actually the best overall pictures of the year. If not THE best, then usually darned close. And it IS subjective enough that the polled experts might not always come up with a candidate that I agree with.

    Avatar, however, was nowhere close. IMO it shouldn't have even been nominated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    So, to measure something subjective you propose to use an objective measurement.
    You think? I'm glad I don't have to point this out to you. And I say they skew them tremendously. Explain why the film that will create the most hype and has the most money poored into it deserves the best chance to win an Oscar.
    Because it's all about money? Jesus was all about the money, after all.

    Last edited by ']['ear; 03-10-2010 at 05:32 PM.

  20. #50
    But you conflate, again, popularity with quality.
    Even taking that as a given, Lewk still has the following problem with his "bigger audience = better media" idea, which is this: that fact that someone watched something does not tell us anything about what they thought of it. Suppose I go see a movie, and I thought it was shit. Sale. Suppose I see another movie, and I think it's quite good but nothing special. Sale. Suppose I see a third movie, and I think it's the best thing I've ever seen on a moving screen. Sale. According to Lewkowski's method, I just rate those three movies exactly the same. I gave them 1 out of 1.

    There's nothing wrong with the basis of Lewk's thinking here, from a utilitarian perspective: the idea that best film/book/whatever is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. It's just that "sales" or "money made" is a hopelessly crude metric for determining that. 100,000 people who watched a TV show and were mildly entertained for an hour, or 5000 people who watched another show and were profoundly moved? Which is more "popular", the show more people watch but don't really give a shit about it or the show fewer people watch but obsess over?
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  21. #51
    Excellent point. Lewk's quality metric breaks down at so many levels. You hit on a truism of Hollywood and entertainment in general: the exposure a product gets (i.e. your "sale") is dictated in large part by how hard a studio pushes the product. Avatar reached unprecedented media saturation. IIRC the studio spent a record amount on promotion, so small surprise. Add that to the 3D gimmick, and you have a perfect storm of "sales," which don't necessarily mean quality.

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Echovirus View Post
    Summer? It came out in December.
    I was referring to Terminator.
    Quote Originally Posted by termite View Post
    Did you even read the drivel you posted or did you just mash some keys on your keyboard to come up with that crap?

    Watch the movie FFS.
    Serious question here: do you have a problem with the way I'm thinking about this or are you just an Avatar fanboy?

    EDIT: the former, got it. Am I not allowed to say that despite not having seen it, On the Waterfront is a good movie? Or that The Hottie and the Nottie is a bad movie? Must all things be experienced to withstand judgment?

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by NGS View Post
    EDIT: the former, got it. Am I not allowed to say that despite not having seen it, On the Waterfront is a good movie? Or that The Hottie and the Nottie is a bad movie? Must all things be experienced to withstand judgment?
    No. You did not need to see Avatar to come to this conclusion. It was obvious from well before it was even released that it was going to lean heavily on the big budget visual extravaganza and decade-long cycle of the 3D gimmick. Like a freakin cicada, that.

    I have yet to see Dumb and Dumber, or its sequel. Yet I feel comfortable evaluating it.

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Excellent point. Lewk's quality metric breaks down at so many levels. You hit on a truism of Hollywood and entertainment in general: the exposure a product gets (i.e. your "sale") is dictated in large part by how hard a studio pushes the product. Avatar reached unprecedented media saturation. IIRC the studio spent a record amount on promotion, so small surprise. Add that to the 3D gimmick, and you have a perfect storm of "sales," which don't necessarily mean quality.
    About Hurt Locker and quality, just read this description by a vet... another example of Hollywood ignorance... Dumb and dumber goes to war...

    Source: Vetvoice.com
    To say that the scenes in this movie were "tactically unrealistic" wouldn't even begin to describe it. I imagine they probably had terribly frustrated military consultants on set. You could tell they tried, but the director was like, "Nah, let's have the three EOD guys split up alone and go chasing bad guys at night through city streets. People will love it!" And the military consultants probably just rolled their eyes.

    (...)

    But here's where the problems start. Because the script writers were, for lack of a better term, lazy, they couldn't formulate a story tying the adrenaline rush of combat to the actual job of your average EOD soldier in Iraq. So they decided instead to make a movie about an EOD/Ranger/sniper/commando/hero guy and his two sidekicks. Who apparently don't have access to radios. And who travel around Iraq by themselves. In fact, most of the scenes rely on oddly and unrealistically contrived situations to induce a stressful reaction from the audience.

    And whether you're writing a screenplay or a book, this is a lazy technique. It's hard to create stress by developing a character's personality so intricately that the audience is actually gripped by a decision the character must make with regard to, say, suicide. On the other hand, it's easy to create stress by strapping a bomb to a guy, locking him in a metal cage/harness with multiple heavy-duty padlocks and placing a timer on it set to expire in two minutes.

    (...)

    So, without giving away too many scenes, let's just suffice it to say, in real life, EOD techs don't conduct dangerous missions as autonomous three-man teams without communications gear. They don't typically carjack Iraqi VCD sellers with a 9mm while wearing civilian clothes, either. While on Camp Victory. And even if they did, they wouldn't be driven off base by the Iraqi and dropped off at another Iraqi family's house, at which time they hop a wall, enter an unlocked door, get into an altercation, flee the scene, and run through an Iraqi city attempting to make it back to the base.

    That typically doesn't happen. Another thing you'll rarely hear in combat is an EOD E-7 suggesting to two or three of his guys that they leave the scene of an explosion in an Iraqi city by saying: "C'mon, let's split up. We can cover more ground that way." But you'll hear it in The Hurt Locker.

    (...)

    Oh, and one last complaint: If you've already watched the movie and thought you were seeing things, yes, those were actually Vietnam-era UH-1 Huey helicopters they were using for the casualty evacuation scene.

  25. #55
    Let me get this straight. We've got a vet telling us that a Hollywood movie is unrealistic, right? Hmm, now that's a tough one fer sure.

    Of COURSE it's unrealistic! It's Hollywood. They're try to push your emotional buttons, not make a freakin documentary. That's why they have a different category for those. Documentaries.

    Look AR, quit while you're behind. You're clearly trying to find some reason why Hurt Locker sucks. First it's warmongering. Now it's lack of verisimilitude. FFS man.

  26. #56
    Which is why you will also fail in educational policy. The entire world is not quantifiable. If you tried to quantify, say, paintings, who would be the best? Whomever sold for the highest at the latest Sotheby's auction? Michael Jackson is the best popular musician ever?
    If they weren't trying to quantify things they wouldn't have labeled one movie "best picture."

    OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT INDIVIDUAL TASTE. It's art, right?
    Yes and here is the problem with determine what is "good" and what is "bad" when all your looking at is subjective view points. How can someone say "that's bad music" without defining a metric to measure what is good or bad. At best they can say that they personally find something distasteful.

    Another example: should we believe that the best NBA player is whomever gets the most all-star votes? Yao Ming! Allen Iverson! Or should we believe coaches, who have consistently rated Tim Duncan as one of the best for over a decade now? The Oscars are the equivalent of polling coaches and players, not the public.
    Analogy fails you here. The NBA (or any sport) actually has easy to follow metrics that determine how good a person is. You do not need to resort to popular opinion to determine who is good or bad, there are objective metrics that are independent of personal taste to examine.

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    If they weren't trying to quantify things they wouldn't have labeled one movie "best picture."
    "Picture which most people on the panel out of the short list liked the most Award of 2010 goes to ....", doesn't have the same ring to it. But the problem you have is the label, not how it is determined? Because that makes sense.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  28. #58
    Just Floatin... termite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Land of Milk & Honey
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by NGS View Post
    I was referring to Terminator.

    Serious question here: do you have a problem with the way I'm thinking about this or are you just an Avatar fanboy?

    EDIT: the former, got it. Am I not allowed to say that despite not having seen it, On the Waterfront is a good movie? Or that The Hottie and the Nottie is a bad movie? Must all things be experienced to withstand judgment?
    I have no problem, I simply find it bemusing when people state that they know something is X or Y without actually taking the time to observe it for themselves.

    You may have noticed that I make no claims about either movie.... so I'm not sure where you got the fanboy angle from.

    You may just surprise yourself if you make decisions about things based on your own observations and experience things firsthand instead of basing your opinions on preconceived ideas.

    As for Terminator, Worthington was a superstar compared to Bale - not that I'd consider that to be a particularly good yardstick.
    Such is Life...

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Let me get this straight. We've got a vet telling us that a Hollywood movie is unrealistic, right? Hmm, now that's a tough one fer sure.

    Of COURSE it's unrealistic! It's Hollywood. They're try to push your emotional buttons, not make a freakin documentary. That's why they have a different category for those. Documentaries.

    Look AR, quit while you're behind. You're clearly trying to find some reason why Hurt Locker sucks. First it's warmongering. Now it's lack of verisimilitude. FFS man.
    "Because the script writers were, for lack of a better term, lazy".

    Do you call it "quality"? Now we have US rewarding failure in business.
    Are the Oscars rewarding failure in movies too?
    That would explain why Hurt Locker won.

  30. #60
    In comparison to the totally scientifically accurate Avatar.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •