Yeah, it's not a thought-provoking movie and it 's #1. So what?

[Backstabba]

I'm not defending bad movies. Truly, I'm not. All the "Date Movie"s and "Stomp The Yard"s in Hollywood should dissapear IMO. But sometimes people just get so....biased.

My main example I can think of is Wild Hogs and Zodiac. Now, Zodiac is the better movie. It's AMAZING, it's thought-provoking, it's just a really, really good movie.

Wild Hogs is a breezy, enjoyable comedy with a big comedic cast with a couple laughs.

And yet when Wild Hogs went on to gross 160+ million, I was surprised, I'll admit. Then Zodiac bombed (kinda-sorta), with...30-40 million?

Then people (mostly IMDBers) began to say things like "AMERICA HAS NO TASTE!", "AMERICAN AUDIENCES ARE SO STUPID!", "HOW CAN WILD HOGS MAKE SO MUCH AND ZODIAC BOMBED?!?!?!?!? PEOPLE ARE SO STUPID!"

Let me explain again. Zodiac is amazing. It is. But it's also a 2 hour and 50 minute crime movie, based on a story with no REAL ending, which is rated R, it asks ALOT of the viewer, and it's based on a true story that could scare people.

Wild Hogs is a 90 minute comedy with a big cast full of recognizeable names, PG-13, a movie you can see and relax to.

There are other examples of this, but I think that is what inspired my rant. If a movie you think is amazing doesn't get amazing B.O, it's not because the audience doesn't want to see a good movie, it's just that they're not in the mood to see something so hard-hitting. People see movies for different reasons. To laugh, to be scared, to be exhilerated, to think. Just because more people see one movie than another, and you think that movie is bad, then that's just your opinion, and they were in the mood for that movie.

Also, just on a side note. Just because Stomp The Yard makes 20 million opening weekend doesn't mean everyone in America is going nuts. With ticket prices these days, that means about a bit more than 2 million people went to see it. Not a large percentage of Americans.

I know that last part was a bit hypocritical, but I don't care. It's MY rant!

[FatSakHead]

"Let me explain again. Zodiac is amazing. It is. But it's also a 2 hour and 50 minute crime movie, based on a story with no REAL ending, which is rated R, it asks ALOT of the viewer, and it's based on a true story that could scare people."

That's no excuse for enjoying crap.

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
"Let me explain again. Zodiac is amazing. It is. But it's also a 2 hour and 50 minute crime movie, based on a story with no REAL ending, which is rated R, it asks ALOT of the viewer, and it's based on a true story that could scare people."

That's no excuse for enjoying crap.

It's an excuse for people not seeing a "amazing movie".

Thanks for playing.

[Quigles]

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with your complaint. Stupid movies almost always make more than smart ones. That's something worth getting upset over, IMO.

[Cop No. 633]

I have to ask, when will Americans ever be in the mood for a thought provoking movie?

I'm tired of talking movies with the average Joe after they find out I'm a movie buff. They try to talk about the merits of a movie like Norbit and I find it pretty weak. I don't even want to go into detail why a movie like that is an abomination to cinema. They wouldn't get it. It'd be like explaining to your dog why he has to eat shitty dog food.

I know it's a cliche to say most Americans have no taste or sense of judgment but come on, this is the country that was dumb enough to vote for Bush twice! I know I didn't! It may have been rigged, but there was still enough popular vote for them to fool the public yet again.

I think America's top grossing films and popular music shows what the basic train of thought for the country is: a teenager who acts only on their feelings and not with their head.

[thedudeman69]

Originally posted by Quigles
I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with your complaint. Stupid movies almost always make more than smart ones. That's something worth getting upset over, IMO.

I got to agree.

People just tend to...turn off their brains way too much.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by Quigles
I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with your complaint. Stupid movies almost always make more than smart ones. That's something worth getting upset over, IMO.

i think its cause the general public goes to a movie to escape from their live sfor 2 hrs. They don't necessarily want to have to sit there and have to figure stuff out so much as be entertained. The stupid movies are obviously more entertaining to this group of ppl so they end up doing better.

But personally though the OP should have compared 2 R rated movies and not a family movei and an R rated movie. Of course the family movie will make more money cause its a larger demograph of ppl. How many parents d oyou think too their kids to see Wild Hogs if for nothing else but to keep them occupied for an hour and a half. Just think about that, thats 3 tickets right there or more if theres more kids.

The only R rated movie to do outstanding and better the na family movie that i've seen in the past years was 300. Now thats not a very thought provoking movie but its easy entertainment so therefor ift made lots of money in the theaters.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by vesaker
i think its cause the general public goes to a movie to escape from their live sfor 2 hrs. They don't necessarily want to have to sit there and have to figure stuff out so much as be entertained. The stupid movies are obviously more entertaining to this group of ppl so they end up doing better.

But personally though the OP should have compared 2 R rated movies and not a family movei and an R rated movie. Of course the family movie will make more money cause its a larger demograph of ppl. How many parents d oyou think too their kids to see Wild Hogs if for nothing else but to keep them occupied for an hour and a half. Just think about that, thats 3 tickets right there or more if theres more kids.

The only R rated movie to do outstanding and better the na family movie that i've seen in the past years was 300. Now thats not a very thought provoking movie but its easy entertainment so therefor ift made lots of money in the theaters.

Oh come on man, give me a break. I'm always hearing the argument that people watch crappy movies because they like to escape from their lives. What the hell does "escaping from their lives" have anything to do with turning your brain off and dumbing down to enjoy immature unorginal regurgiated Hollywood bullshit? Let's face it, America in general has a bad taste in movies. And to be politically correct, it doesn't mean they're stupid. (Although like the poster above mentioned it doesn't surprise me that a nation that voted Bush twice into office and has a 33% high school drop out rate would cause movies like Click and Scary Movie 4 to open at #1 at the box office).

And these so-called "thought-provoking" movies don't really challenge your brain as much as you think it would. They're not Memento or Mulholland Drive. Zodiac was an excellent, well-plotted,well-acted movie, and it pretty much spelled everything out for you. I mean shit, if you didn't "get" Zodiac, then what the fuck.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Wild Hogs was more accesible to a family oriented crowd and teens.

Zodiac, not so much.


Yeah, i was upset that it didnt get that much regonition, but the more younger crowd, and families saw that. Its that simple.

Different strokes for different folks

[Le_Big_Mac]

There are two problems with this rant:

1) Unless you have cranial processing issues or are mentally challenged, people refusing to apply their minds in seeing an acclaimed, smart film because they don't want to use their brains is a problem with people. If you just don't want to see a scary movie, stay home and watch a good estrogen-induced drama or a lighthearted comedy.

2) Most people who choose to see Date Movie and Wild Hogs want to see it and go in with high expectations and for some reason, come out satisfied.

[FatSakHead]

How exactly was WIld Hogs a family movie?

I'm sure I can remember several R-rated movies beating out family films at the box office. If anyone can link me to a site containing records of box-office openings I'd be happy to provide examples.

[Jerk Shapiro]

You gotta think... the movies the production company people THINK will make the most money get the most TV spots, the best trailers, and shit like that. So they're out there more. The people at the top don't give a shit about quality, unless of course to you quality = $. We all enjoy great movies here, and that does set us apart from a large group of folks here in the states. But come on, at least we've all got movie theaters within driving range, have access to shit like Netflix, and can get our hands on some great flicks somehow.

[Servo]

Some people just don't give a shit. Doesn't make them any smarter or any dumber. Yeah, shitty movies get made, but that doesn't mean less good movies are being made. I have a lot of friends who aren't into movies like I am. I put in American Graffiti and they were bored to tears. So they don't have the same taste as I do, it's because they don't care enough.

It's like literature. My friend loves to read. He'll crank out a new book every week. I don't hate reading, but usually when I do read something, it's really, really short and not very thought-provoking. The simple matter is: I honestly don't give a shit about books, unless something specific nabs my attention. This probably drives my friend crazy, but what-ev. He can go wipe his tears with the pages of Hemingway. I'll be wiping my ass with them.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by Servo
Some people just don't give a shit..

Yea you're right, some people don't give a shit about using their brain or stimulating their mind, thanks for agreeing with us.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Yea you're right, some people don't give a shit about using their brain or stimulating their mind, thanks for agreeing with us.

You see, you're spinning it in some ultra-negative light without looking at it from a certain perspective. Not EVERYONE is a film geek. Not everyone is into the greatest and most intelligent films. Some are into other things.

For instance, how many music geeks do you know are just as picky about their movies as they are about their music? How many literature fanatics are just as picky about their music as they are about the books they read? How many comic book fans are just as picky about their books as they are about their comic books?

It's not about everyone not wanting to use their brain or stimulating their minds. Some people just aren't into films like they are with other things.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by LordSimen
You see, you're spinning it in some ultra-negative light without looking at it from a certain perspective. Not EVERYONE is a film geek. Not everyone is into the greatest and most intelligent films. Some are into other things.

For instance, how many music geeks do you know are just as picky about their movies as they are about their music? How many literature fanatics are just as picky about their music as they are about the books they read? How many comic book fans are just as picky about their books as they are about their comic books?

It's not about everyone not wanting to use their brain or stimulating their minds. Some people just aren't into films like they are with other things.

Being a film geek has nothing to do with being able to appreciate sophisticated art and activities that stimulate thinking. I've shown films like American Beauty and Zodiac to highly intelligent people who don't even watch movies and they love it. Of course, the same people who would call a movie like The Departed "long and gay" and How High as the best movie ever probably wouldn't be able to appreciate any sort of medium that requires actual thinking. I'm not very much of a book reader myself but one of my all-time favorite books is "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking. It has nothing to do with being a film buff. Whether your medium of choice is TV, film, comic books/graphic novels, books, music, whatever, there's something to be said about people unwilling to challenge their mind because its so easy to turn your brain off.

[bigred760]

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

While Zodiac was good, it was extremely LOOONG. I don't consider it a masterpiece by any means (Fincher's Se7en was much better). Now I don't consider Wild Hogs a masterpiece either, but it was fun.

Nobody's calling WIld Hogs a masterpiece, but it's been my experience that people (all those non-movie geeks) go to movies to enjoy themselves. I'm guessing Zodiac did not offer the kind of enjoyment a lot of people look for.

[Quigles]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Oh come on man, give me a break. I'm always hearing the argument that people watch crappy movies because they like to escape from their lives. What the hell does "escaping from their lives" have anything to do with turning your brain off and dumbing down to enjoy immature unorginal regurgiated Hollywood bullshit?
I agree 100%. The whole "shutting your brain off to watch a movie" argument has always bugged me, especially since a large majority of the quality movies out there don't actually force you to think that much. It pains me to think there are people out there who can watch something like CHILDREN OF MEN and be confused about what happened.

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Being a film geek has nothing to do with being able to appreciate sophisticated art and activities that stimulate thinking.

Whether your medium of choice is TV, film, comic books/graphic novels, books, music, whatever, there's something to be said about people unwilling to challenge their mind because its so easy to turn your brain off.
Once again, I agree 100%. I didn't even realize I was quoting the same person at first, but these were the two posts in this thread that stood out to me. Well said.

[inglourious basterd]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
there's something to be said about people unwilling to challenge their mind because its so easy to turn your brain off.

Oh come on man, give me a break. I'm always hearing the argument that people watch crappy movies because they like to escape from their lives. What the hell does "escaping from their lives" have anything to do with turning your brain off and dumbing down to enjoy immature unorginal regurgiated Hollywood bullshit?

I think that there is a lot of good posts in this thread. I don't agree with everything, but it was interesting to read.

Background:
First -- I do enjoy movies that are thought-provoking and well-made. I used to regularly watch well-made films.

Recently, I've been involved in graduate school and internships related to my graduate school experience. I find that I don't watch thought-provoking films much these days. I end up watching more "brainless" comedy fare just because I *need* to shut my mind off for an hour or two in between 8 hours of classes/work and study time.

The point:
I do agree that some Americans lack the ability to understand well-made films/books/TV. This is certainly one group of people that does not appreciate well-made films. However, I also believe that Americans' investment in efficiency and productivity is one of the cultural reasons that we eat up the "brainless" material. There are many people out there that just need a film in between work and the stressors of life to get their head to shut the fuck up. And watching "The Sea Inside" and "Children of Men" won't necessarily address that need.

I find that many introspective films requires our attention. If we're not in a state of mind that we could give our full-attention to the film, then we simply shouldn't be watching them. Films like "Click" and "Blades of Glory" don't require our attention, they don't really require any thought processing, and they are exactly what you expect them to be. It's like McDonalds -- you know its shitty, but its so good when you need something quick.

As someone who appreciates film, I do try to watch "introspective" films as often as possible. But when i do, I tend to do it on my days off. As LordSimen mentioned, this has everything to do with your personal preference. On the extremely precious time we get off, we could either go outside and play sports, watch film, hang out with our family, eat at a nice restaurant, listen to music, play video games, or read a book. I do most of these things, but I particularly enjoy investing my time with film. It's safe to say that the majority of people in this board share this sentiment.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Being a film geek has nothing to do with being able to appreciate sophisticated art and activities that stimulate thinking. I've shown films like American Beauty and Zodiac to highly intelligent people who don't even watch movies and they love it. Of course, the same people who would call a movie like The Departed "long and gay" and How High as the best movie ever probably wouldn't be able to appreciate any sort of medium that requires actual thinking. I'm not very much of a book reader myself but one of my all-time favorite books is "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking. It has nothing to do with being a film buff. Whether your medium of choice is TV, film, comic books/graphic novels, books, music, whatever, there's something to be said about people unwilling to challenge their mind because its so easy to turn your brain off.

You say that because you are a film fanatic. if you were a fan of any other thing, such as some sort of music, books, videogames, what the hell ever, you'd be saying the same exact thing about the average consumer and what they prefer. And in many of those cases, you'd also fall under the same thing you're complaining about now, only for their medium.

Because, as film fans, love films so much we tend to forget that the whole world doesn't have the same loves and hates as we do.

[jbar1026]

i know im in the minority when i say this but.... wild hogs is a better movie than zodiac imo. i found hogs fun to watch sure it was kinda lame in parts but what comedy doesnt do that. and as for zodiac z Z z Z it was so slow and i kept saying it will get better. then it ended... kinda

the average person goes to the movie to be entertained. which is why dumb movie do better sometimes

[miguel_montes]

Originally posted by jbar1026
the average person goes to the movie to be entertained. which is why dumb movie do better sometimes

Yeah, I agree with you. But only in this part. Zodiac is so much better than Wild Hogs.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Oh come on man, give me a break. I'm always hearing the argument that people watch crappy movies because they like to escape from their lives. What the hell does "escaping from their lives" have anything to do with turning your brain off and dumbing down to enjoy immature unorginal regurgiated Hollywood bullshit? Let's face it, America in general has a bad taste in movies. And to be politically correct, it doesn't mean they're stupid. (Although like the poster above mentioned it doesn't surprise me that a nation that voted Bush twice into office and has a 33% high school drop out rate would cause movies like Click and Scary Movie 4 to open at #1 at the box office).

And these so-called "thought-provoking" movies don't really challenge your brain as much as you think it would. They're not Memento or Mulholland Drive. Zodiac was an excellent, well-plotted,well-acted movie, and it pretty much spelled everything out for you. I mean shit, if you didn't "get" Zodiac, then what the fuck.

I wasn't defending it, i was just saying its easier for ppl to watch these pointless movies. Not everyone wants to go on a journey or even have to think much about what their doing but everyone wants to be entertained. Just think of the attention span of ppl these days, do think they want to sit for 2 hours and 50 minutes for every movie they see? Lots of ppl want to be simply entertained and it seems that the trend is that its the less though provoking movies that entertain them and therefor they end up making more money.

And its not about understanding the movie, if ppl don't think they're going to be entertained by a movie thats about some guy trying to find a serial killer then they aren't going to go see that movie. It just turns out tha tppl who like that sort of thing are in manority compared to the ppl who like Wild Hogs which again is a bad comparison anyways.

So like i said i'm not defeding it just giving the reason i think they do better at the box office then the more though provoking movies. Lowest common denomiator, its all apart of this wonderful thing called economincs. :)

[Quigles]

Originally posted by LordSimen
You say that because you are a film fanatic. if you were a fan of any other thing, such as some sort of music, books, videogames, what the hell ever, you'd be saying the same exact thing about the average consumer and what they prefer. And in many of those cases, you'd also fall under the same thing you're complaining about now, only for their medium.

Because, as film fans, love films so much we tend to forget that the whole world doesn't have the same loves and hates as we do.
Did you even read his post? His entire point was that it doesn't matter whether you're a fanatic or not about a certain medium, you shouldn't dumb down what you watch/read/listen to because of it.

Some of my friends read the Harry Potter books almost exclusively (with the occasional other book like The Da Vinci Code), and honestly, I find it pathetic. I have nothing against those particular novels, but if you think Harry Potter is the height of available literature, you really need to widen your horizons a bit.

[Tweek]

Originally posted by Quigles
I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with your complaint. Stupid movies almost always make more than smart ones. That's something worth getting upset over, IMO.


I so agree!

It just means studios will find more incentive to put out "stupid movies". Now, I like lighter fare, but there's such a thing as crossing the line into mindnumbingly ASININE.

(Fincher's Se7en was much better).

Se7en=the shit.

It pains me to think there are people out there who can watch something like CHILDREN OF MEN and be confused about what happened.

Ditto.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Quigles
Did you even read his post? His entire point was that it doesn't matter whether you're a fanatic or not about a certain medium, you shouldn't dumb down what you watch/read/listen to because of it.

Some of my friends read the Harry Potter books almost exclusively (with the occasional other book like The Da Vinci Code), and honestly, I find it pathetic. I have nothing against those particular novels, but if you think Harry Potter is the height of available literature, you really need to widen your horizons a bit.

You are expecting everyone to be scholars about everything and that my friend is an incredibly stupid argument.

Why? Not everyone wants to obsess over the best and greatest of everything. Some people prefer other things over that. Just because someone prefers a dumb film over a smart one does not make them anymore dumb. For all you know, they could be incredible musicians and into music. You don't know.

[FatSakHead]

I also disagree with the idea that we shouldn't give a shit how much money these stupid movies make because it apparently doesn't affect us. I wonder how many aspiring filmmakers out there whose dream it is to get their vision and voice heard, who have wonderful, daring, original, outstanding screenplays that would make excellent movies but will never see a greenlight because major Hollywood studios are only interested in making safe tried bullshit to appeal to the lowest attention span because that's the only thing mainstream America pays to see. Movies like Brokeback Mountain are labeled by the homophobic mainstream moviegoers as "gay" and never become seen outside of the film buff circle while each new entry in the Scary Movie and Rush Hour franchise rakes in hundreds of millions. You book lovers don't have much to complain about because the cost of writing, publishing, and distributing a book can't compare to the cost of movie production.

For us film buffs who aren't directors, this means we may never see something truly original and daring get the success it deserves. And that's a damn shame.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by LordSimen
You are expecting everyone to be scholars about everything and that my friend is an incredibly stupid argument.

Why? Not everyone wants to obsess over the best and greatest of everything. Some people prefer other things over that. Just because someone prefers a dumb film over a smart one does not make them anymore dumb. For all you know, they could be incredible musicians and into music. You don't know.

*Head explodes*

If they're incredible musicians then they must be sophisticated when it comes to music, and guess what, music is ART!!! That means they are open-minded to some sort of sophistication and challenge.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I've met some great guitar players who listen to shitty music, but I see what you're getting at.

[FatSakHead]

I don't know if guitar players play into this. Not trying to knock guitar players or anything, but some of the most ignorant fucking idiots I've met were machines at the damn guitar. For some reason they had a slightly above average taste since all they listened to was either heavy metal or mainstream classical rock, but were ignorant when it came to all other forms of art.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
*Head explodes*

If they're incredible musicians then they must be sophisticated when it comes to music, and guess what, music is ART!!! That means they are open-minded to some sort of sophistication and challenge.

Exactly my friend. Which is why it's silly to just blanket everyone who isn't into Stanley Kubrick, or something such as that, just because they may not be into the most sophisticated films. Just because someone prefers Wild Hogs over Zodiac DOES NOT make them any less or more sophisticated than you are.


Originally posted by FatSakHead
I don't know if guitar players play into this. Not trying to knock guitar players or anything, but some of the most ignorant fucking idiots I've met were machines at the damn guitar. For some reason they had a slightly above average taste since all they listened to was either heavy metal or mainstream classical rock, but were ignorant when it came to all other forms of art.

How's that slightly above average taste in music? Heavy Metal has some of the most talented musicians in the world. That's great taste in music.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Exactly my friend. Which is why it's silly to just blanket everyone who isn't into Stanley Kubrick, or something such as that, just because they may not be into the most sophisticated films. Just because someone prefers Wild Hogs over Zodiac DOES NOT make them any less or more sophisticated than you are.


Did you even read my posts? My whole fucking rant was about people who were completely ignorant to challenging their minds when it came to ANY form of art.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Did you even read my posts? My whole fucking rant was about people who were completely ignorant to challenging their minds when it came to ANY form of art.

And I was saying that you're assuming that with no true basis to it. You don't know if they are like that or not.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
*Head explodes*

If they're incredible musicians then they must be sophisticated when it comes to music, and guess what, music is ART!!! That means they are open-minded to some sort of sophistication and challenge.

WTF?? whats that supposed to meen? Just cause someone loves one art form enough to be a "buff" doesn't meen they have to give two shits about any art other art forms and to think htat they have to or should is just stupid.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by vesaker
WTF?? whats that supposed to meen? Just cause someone loves one art form enough to be a "buff" doesn't meen they have to give two shits about any art other art forms and to think htat they have to or should is just stupid.

That's not what I said. Really, again, my rant was about people who are ignorant to challenge their thinking to any sort of art in general. Jesus God Fucking Damn Christ on mind-blowing hallucinogens people, read my fucking posts before you REPEATEDLY put words in my mouth that aren't there.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by LordSimen
And I was saying that you're assuming that with no true basis to it. You don't know if they are like that or not.

I never did fucking assume that, and I never said it to begin with. AGAIN, FOR THE MILLIONTH FUCKIN TIME, I SAID IT WAS IGNORANT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID TO CHALLENGE THEIR BRAIN ON ANY, FUCKIN ANY, FORM OF ART.

Fuckin Christ man.

[Servo]

I don't see how it's a bad thing to be ignorant towards art (good, bad, whatever. I don't happen to believe in high art or low art, to each his own, etc. etc.). Like I said, some people don't give a shit AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. That was the fucking point of MY post.

My friend is like "fuck movies."

And I'm like "fuck books."

So who cares? There's more things to be up in arms over besides people who don't care about film. I've discovered there's really no point in getting all pissy about it.

And on a sidenote, I hated Zodiac. Just thought it was long and boring. Factual, yeah, fine, good job with that. But if I wanted all that information I would've just googled it. It was about as exciting.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
I never did fucking assume that, and I never said it to begin with. AGAIN, FOR THE MILLIONTH FUCKIN TIME, I SAID IT WAS IGNORANT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID TO CHALLENGE THEIR BRAIN ON ANY, FUCKIN ANY, FORM OF ART.

Fuckin Christ man.

And how is that a bad thing? Perhaps they aren't into art. Maybe they're an athlete and into other forms of life. Not everyone is an artist nor is everyone who is into art more sophisticated than those who aren't. A freakin' rocket scientist could be the smartest person on the planet and still go home and watch Date Movie.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
That's not what I said. Really, again, my rant was about people who are ignorant to challenge their thinking to any sort of art in general. Jesus God Fucking Damn Christ on mind-blowing hallucinogens people, read my fucking posts before you REPEATEDLY put words in my mouth that aren't there.

well then your all over the place with your points. your first post was you say that just because ppl have reasons that you don't agree with for not liking Zodiac that those reason aren't valid or something. "the movie was too long" or "its hard to understand" are two valid reasons for not liking a movie, you don't agree with that? who fucking cares.

The funny thing is is that the OP's rant was about how movies he thought were good didn't do as well as movies he though were not as good. So then i post why i though that was then you rip into me saying my thoughts on the subject were stupid and you were tired of hearing it as an excuse for watching crappy movies when the OP didn't even down play Wild Hogs at all and just couldn't understand whe it made more money in the box office more then Zodiac.

Aside from you agreeing with he OP that you think Zodiac is a better movie then WIld Hogs you haven't even been discussing the original topic which had to do with Box office sales as that was the one example he gave as to how the public thought the oppisite that he did. Which to me meens YOU need to read the OP more carefully next time, oh an calm the fuck down, if ppl aren't understanding what your trying to get across then perhaps you should lay it out differently? just a suggestion

[Quigles]

Originally posted by LordSimen
A freakin' rocket scientist could be the smartest person on the planet and still go home and watch Date Movie.
Yes, but at the end of the day, he's still a rocket scientist, with a guaranteed appreciation for more intelligent things in life than merely movies like DATE MOVIE. And at the end of the day, one fourth of Americans are still retarded, with movies like DATE MOVIE being the only type of shit they'll actually spend money to go see.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by LordSimen
And how is that a bad thing? Perhaps they aren't into art. Maybe they're an athlete and into other forms of life. Not everyone is an artist nor is everyone who is into art more sophisticated than those who aren't. A freakin' rocket scientist could be the smartest person on the planet and still go home and watch Date Movie.

Being athletic has nothing to do with being intelligent and challenging your mind. An athlete who prefers to turn his brain off is an athletic dumbass. And a dumbass is a dumbass, whether they like movies or sports.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Being athletic has nothing to do with being intelligent and challenging your mind. An athlete who prefers to turn his brain off is an athletic dumbass. And a dumbass is a dumbass, whether they like movies or sports.

You are completely missing the point my friend.

My point is not EVERYONE is into the same thing you are and not EVERYONE is into art like you are. Some people look at art as an escape zone from normal life. Some people are into hardcore athletics, some people are into hardcore sciences. Life is not all art.

[Quigles]

Originally posted by LordSimen
You are completely missing the point my friend.

My point is not EVERYONE is into the same thing you are and not EVERYONE is into art like you are. Some people look at art as an escape zone from normal life. Some people are into hardcore athletics, some people are into hardcore sciences. Life is not all art.
I think it's you who is missing the point.

Treating art as an "escape" doesn't mean only enjoying the stupid side of it. The people you're describing are exactly the people I'm talking about. The ones that make all of Americans look as dumb as they are, since they'd rather go see DATE MOVIE, WILD HOGS, or BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2 instead of ZODIAC.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Quigles
I think it's you who is missing the point.

Treating art as an "escape" doesn't mean only enjoying the stupid side of it. The people you're describing are exactly the people I'm talking about. The ones that make all of Americans look as dumb as they are, since they'd rather go see DATE MOVIE, WILD HOGS, or BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2 instead of ZODIAC.

Just because they choose to see those movies instead of Zodiac does in no way reflect their intelligence nor does it make them any less sophisticated than you or anyone else on this board.

[Quigles]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Just because they choose to see those movies instead of Zodiac does in no way reflect their intelligence
Yes, it does. I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally when somebody prefers to see stupid movies over smart ones, they themselves are in fact more stupid than those that would rather see the smart films.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Quigles
Yes, it does. I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally when somebody prefers to see stupid movies over smart ones, they themselves are in fact more stupid than those that would rather see the smart films.

No. It doesn't. Not one bit. A person can be, like I said, a fucking rocket scientists and still go home to watch Date Movie. Your taste in movies DOES NOT REFLECT YOUR INTELLIGENCE.

[Quigles]

Originally posted by LordSimen
No. It doesn't. Not one bit. A person can be, like I said, a fucking rocket scientists and still go home to watch Date Movie. Your taste in movies DOES NOT REFLECT YOUR INTELLIGENCE.
Yes, you're right. I'm sure plenty of rocket scientists went to go see DATE MOVIE. Point well made.

[zombievictim]

I would have to agree with Quigles on this one. I mean, generally I see a lot of dumber people seeing dumb movies. I know a big group of people who are generally very stupid when it comes to watching movies, finding things like Stomp the Yard and Mean Girls as masterpieces. Then they find things like Zodiac to be stupid and boring. Now I'm not saying that the people themselves are stupid, I'm just saying that they are very dumb when it comes to movies.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally posted by Quigles
Yes, but at the end of the day, he's still a rocket scientist, with a guaranteed appreciation for more intelligent things in life than merely movies like DATE MOVIE. And at the end of the day, one fourth of Americans are still retarded, with movies like DATE MOVIE being the only type of shit they'll actually spend money to go see.

So I guess the point then would be to exercise your brain in an intelligent way through some medium of art or athletics, making it ok to then enjoy guitly pleasures such as lousy movies. If this is the case then I would say it's unfair to label a large amount of ppl who go to see crappy movies retarded because we're unaware of how much intellectual stimulation they recieve in other areas of their life. No one is ever going to have an appreciation for all art forms and activities, there will always be biases. The only thing we can do is to remain as open-minded as possible and lay off judging others when their choices may seem "stupid" to us. To do otherwise just leads to a whole lot of irrational generalizing.

[Quigles]

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
So I guess the point then would be to exercise your brain in an intelligent way through some medium of art or athletics, making it ok to then enjoy guitly pleasures such as lousy movies.
Yes, precisely. As long as people aren't completely one sided in their approach to varying mediums of art, I have no complaints.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by zombievictim
Now I'm not saying that the people themselves are stupid, I'm just saying that they are very dumb when it comes to movies.

I think that's the point LordSimen is trying to make; intelligence when it comes tomovies has NO correlation to intelligence outside of movies.

[FatSakHead]

And the point I'm trying to make is whether its art or anything else in life the unwillingless for many people to challenge their beliefs, their mind, and to engage their brain is general is lame, and more often than not a sign of idiocracy.

These are the same people that whine on the news because they had to watch An Inconvenient Truth in their college class and were afraid to have their conservative belief that global warming is a myth to be challenged.

[zombievictim]

Originally posted by bigred760
I think that's the point LordSimen is trying to make; intelligence when it comes tomovies has NO correlation to intelligence outside of movies.

Yes I understand that, I just agreed moreso with Quigles argument because IMO, he put up a better one. That's why I sorta went on to state that I also agree with the other argument.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
And the point I'm trying to make is whether its art or anything else in life the unwillingless for many people to challenge their beliefs, their mind, and to engage their brain is general is lame, and more often than not a sign of idiocracy.

These are the same people that whine on the news because they had to watch An Inconvenient Truth in their college class and were afraid to have their conservative belief that global warming is a myth to be challenged.


You're attaching a blanket belief that everyone who feels that way or doesn't prefer the most challenging films are morons or idiots. This is completely untrue. Perhaps they didn't like An Inconvenient Truth and perhaps smart films simply aren't they're thing and they got better things to do than watch movies.

A person's choice in films is not a proper way to gauge a person's intelligence. Ever.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally posted by LordSimen
You're attaching a blanket belief that everyone who feels that way or doesn't prefer the most challenging films are morons or idiots. This is completely untrue. Perhaps they didn't like An Inconvenient Truth and perhaps smart films simply aren't they're thing and they got better things to do than watch movies.

A person's choice in films is not a proper way to gauge a person's intelligence. Ever.

I think his anger comes from people who decide to turn away certain art forms without giving them a chance. Even if you don't usually see a particular type of film or listen to a particular type of music it would be best to expose yourself to them and allow yourself to enjoy or hate it. I do agree that people should go out on a limb more and out of their comfort zones because you never know if you'll like what you see. That's how people grow and mature, by trying new things. Simply turning away from certain mediums would be ignorant.

Not seeing or trying something because you're afraid it will alter your views is a stupid reason for not becoming exposed to it. People shouldn't fear change that much.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
I think his anger comes from people who decide to turn away certain art forms without giving them a chance. Even if you don't usually see a particular type of film or listen to a particular type of music it would be best to expose yourself to them and allow yourself to enjoy or hate it. I do agree that people should go out on a limb more and out of their comfort zones because you never know if you'll like what you see. That's how people grow and mature, by trying new things. Simply turning away from certain mediums would be ignorant.

Not seeing or trying something because you're afraid it will alter your views is a stupid reason for not becoming exposed to it. People shouldn't fear change that much.

Exactly. That dumb fuck who was on the news and was whining because his class had to watch An Inconvenient Truth and he refused to needs to be slapped the fuck out. And for the record, he never saw the movie. If he's not going to challenge his views or engage his brain then what the fuck is he doing in college? An even more appropriate question would be how the fuck he got into college in the first place.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
I think his anger comes from people who decide to turn away certain art forms without giving them a chance. Even if you don't usually see a particular type of film or listen to a particular type of music it would be best to expose yourself to them and allow yourself to enjoy or hate it. I do agree that people should go out on a limb more and out of their comfort zones because you never know if you'll like what you see. That's how people grow and mature, by trying new things. Simply turning away from certain mediums would be ignorant.

Not seeing or trying something because you're afraid it will alter your views is a stupid reason for not becoming exposed to it. People shouldn't fear change that much.

And my anger comes from the fact that he's judging people based on their movie tastes, which is wrong.

[fooknasty]

I would have to agree with LordSimen on this one. In no way does a movie you watch reflect your level of intelligence in any shape or form.

My friend and I wanted to go see a movie this weekned. We are both Juniors at Indiana University. I am a secondary education major, he is a
psychology major.

He wanted to see Balls of Fury and I wanted to see 3:10 to Yuma. Does this mean he is dumber than me? No chance in hell. I will be the first person to admit he is 10x smarter than me.

I know that's just one case, but come on. Basing someone's intelligence on what movies they watch doesn't make sense. There is no research, or scientific proof that says watching Zodiac makes you smarter or dumber than if you watched Date Movie. Are you saying that people that like the movie Commando are dumb? Or the girls that like movies like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days are dumb?

This argument makes no sense and has nothing to prove it does.

People who don't have a passion for movies don't critique and analyze like we do on these boards. Often times people just watch them to relax for 2 hours.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally posted by fooknasty
I would have to agree with LordSimen on this one. In no way does a movie you watch reflect your level of intelligence in any shape or form.

My friend and I wanted to go see a movie this weekned. We are both Juniors at Indiana University. I am a secondary education major, he is a
psychology major.

He wanted to see Balls of Fury and I wanted to see 3:10 to Yuma. Does this mean he is dumber than me? No chance in hell. I will be the first person to admit he is 10x smarter than me.

I know that's just one case, but come on. Basing someone's intelligence on what movies they watch doesn't make sense. There is no research, or scientific proof that says watching Zodiac makes you smarter or dumber than if you watched Date Movie. Are you saying that people that like the movie Commando are dumb? Or the girls that like movies like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days are dumb?

This argument makes no sense and has nothing to prove it does.

People who don't have a passion for movies don't critique and analyze like we do on these boards. Often times people just watch them to relax for 2 hours.

I like to relax and watch dumb movies sometimes as well, but I do venture out into new genres that I'm not familiar once in awhile because they give me new perspectives on movies. I think people take for granted how important it is to keep your brain stimulated with new material. I agree with you on the point that seeing those movies doesn't determine that you are lacking intelligence. Even if those films were the only films someone watched I wouldn't call them unintelligent, I would call them narrow-minded on the subject of movies.

I know that judging someone based on the movies they prefer doesn't make any sense, but neither does refusing to see new material because it's foreign to you. People come to love what they love in art forms because they were exposed to them at one time or another. If this is true then why shouldn't someone try out a flick that they normally wouldn't see? There's no reason to refuse that offer other than personal bias developed from repeated exposure to the same material. That makes someone narrow-minded, at least on the subject of one art form.

Some people might have the capacity for extreme intelligence, but if their knowledge in different fields is limited to one form than how are they supposed to sound educated at all? IMO they don't.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
I think his anger comes from people who decide to turn away certain art forms without giving them a chance. Even if you don't usually see a particular type of film or listen to a particular type of music it would be best to expose yourself to them and allow yourself to enjoy or hate it. I do agree that people should go out on a limb more and out of their comfort zones because you never know if you'll like what you see. That's how people grow and mature, by trying new things. Simply turning away from certain mediums would be ignorant.

Not seeing or trying something because you're afraid it will alter your views is a stupid reason for not becoming exposed to it. People shouldn't fear change that much.

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Exactly. That dumb fuck who was on the news and was whining because his class had to watch An Inconvenient Truth and he refused to needs to be slapped the fuck out. And for the record, he never saw the movie. If he's not going to challenge his views or engage his brain then what the fuck is he doing in college? An even more appropriate question would be how the fuck he got into college in the first place.

Turning away certain art forms is one thing; turning away one particular movie because it doesn't look interesting is another. I'm all for expanding one's mind and trying to see things from others' POVs; I agree with FSH when he says the student who didn't want to see An Incovenient Truth because he had already made up his mind about global warming. He's a closeminded fool.

But what the hell does that have to do with art? It's one movie. He doesn't want to watch it because he thinks it looks like a bad movie; he's just not watching it because he already knows he disagrees with its politics. It's a political movie; refusing to see it doesn't mean the kid is a retard (in the true sense of the word), just closeminded. Probably comes from upbringing.

[Quigles]

I have a question for the schmoes here. (And to preface, I'm going to be as extremely one-sided in my approach, just to prove a point.)

You have two different people.

One has the following movies listed as his favorites:

+ Date Movie
+ Wild Hogs
+ The Fast and the Furious
+ Waist Deep
+ The Dukes of Hazzard
+ Delta Farce
+ The Number 23


The second has these listed as his favorites:

+ The Godfather
+ Seven Samurai
+ Pulp Fiction
+ Citizen Kane
+ Taxi Driver
+ Fight Club
+ American Beauty


Now, what would you say the likelihood is that the second guy is more intelligent than the first?

...anybody getting my point?

Just because it's not DEFINITE that the people watching these awful movies are dumb, I have learned through experience that people with terrible taste in film are oftentimes also stupid in other regards. I'm not saying it's a fact; I'm merely saying it's a likely possibility that assuredly applies to many individuals in the world.

Agree? Disagree?

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Quigles
One has the following movies listed as his favorites:

+ Date Movie
+ Wild Hogs
+ The Fast and the Furious
+ Waist Deep
+ The Dukes of Hazzard
+ Delta Farce
+ The Number 23


The second has these listed as his favorites:

+ The Godfather
+ Seven Samurai
+ Pulp Fiction
+ Citizen Kane
+ Taxi Driver
+ Fight Club
+ American Beauty


Now, what would you say the likelihood is that the second guy is more intelligent than the first?


Neither has more likelihood than the other. Someone can watch Citizen Kane and be a complete dumb ass just as someone can watch Delta Farce and be an intelligent rocket scientist. One's film taste does not reflect their intelligence, it merely reflects their personal tastes in films.

Fred Durst, for example, lists Fight Club as one of his all time fravorite films and I'm 90% sure he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Quigles
I have a question for the schmoes here. (And to preface, I'm going to be as extremely one-sided in my approach, just to prove a point.)

You have two different people.

One has the following movies listed as his favorites:

+ Date Movie
+ Wild Hogs
+ The Fast and the Furious
+ Waist Deep
+ The Dukes of Hazzard
+ Delta Farce
+ The Number 23


The second has these listed as his favorites:

+ The Godfather
+ Seven Samurai
+ Pulp Fiction
+ Citizen Kane
+ Taxi Driver
+ Fight Club
+ American Beauty


Now, what would you say the likelihood is that the second guy is more intelligent than the first?

...anybody getting my point?

Just because it's not DEFINITE that the people watching these awful movies are dumb, I have learned through experience that people with terrible taste in film are oftentimes also stupid in other regards. I'm not saying it's a fact; I'm merely saying it's a likely possibility that assuredly applies to many individuals in the world.

Agree? Disagree?


The likelihood is probably greater, but is not set in stone - that's why you can't automatically assume anything about the person in general, only that the person's tastes in movies generally sucks. I would say that the person whose favorites are in the second list is more cultured, which probably means smarter, but not always.

Another possibility is that the person whose favorites are in the first list is younger . . . a kid.

[Servo]

Originally posted by Quigles
I have a question for the schmoes here. (And to preface, I'm going to be as extremely one-sided in my approach, just to prove a point.)

You have two different people.

One has the following movies listed as his favorites:

+ Date Movie
+ Wild Hogs
+ The Fast and the Furious
+ Waist Deep
+ The Dukes of Hazzard
+ Delta Farce
+ The Number 23


The second has these listed as his favorites:

+ The Godfather
+ Seven Samurai
+ Pulp Fiction
+ Citizen Kane
+ Taxi Driver
+ Fight Club
+ American Beauty


Now, what would you say the likelihood is that the second guy is more intelligent than the first?

...anybody getting my point?

Just because it's not DEFINITE that the people watching these awful movies are dumb, I have learned through experience that people with terrible taste in film are oftentimes also stupid in other regards. I'm not saying it's a fact; I'm merely saying it's a likely possibility that assuredly applies to many individuals in the world.

Agree? Disagree?

I actually wouldn't think too highly of the person with the second set of movies. Every film buff loves those films. It's nothing groundbreaking at all. Maybe if he had more movies on the list that came out before the 1970's that wasn't Kane and Samurai....

I just think this all has to do more with taste than with intelligence. You're all acting like a bunch of elitists, saying that if you don't like the movies you like they're dumb, when that's completely and insanely wrong.

Besides, someone with that prefers that second set of movies can be just as dumb as you'd perceive the person who preferred the first set. I know this because I went to film school at a very small private university...and when you're one out of about 20 film majors, you get to know just about everyone outside the program's movie taste. The stories I could tell.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally posted by Quigles
I have a question for the schmoes here. (And to preface, I'm going to be as extremely one-sided in my approach, just to prove a point.)

You have two different people.

One has the following movies listed as his favorites:

+ Date Movie
+ Wild Hogs
+ The Fast and the Furious
+ Waist Deep
+ The Dukes of Hazzard
+ Delta Farce
+ The Number 23


The second has these listed as his favorites:

+ The Godfather
+ Seven Samurai
+ Pulp Fiction
+ Citizen Kane
+ Taxi Driver
+ Fight Club
+ American Beauty


Now, what would you say the likelihood is that the second guy is more intelligent than the first?

...anybody getting my point?

Just because it's not DEFINITE that the people watching these awful movies are dumb, I have learned through experience that people with terrible taste in film are oftentimes also stupid in other regards. I'm not saying it's a fact; I'm merely saying it's a likely possibility that assuredly applies to many individuals in the world.

Agree? Disagree?

I think it really just depends on the individual but...I think the list that would give me the best impression of someone would be a mix of stupid and thought provoking movies. That could possibly indicate that the person likes to be intellectual stimulated, but also just likes to relax and be entertained.

[Quigles]

I wasn't trying to provide a realistic example, nor was I trying to imply that anybody who likes dumb movies is guaranteed dumb themselves. My point was merely to show that, if you were forced to guess which of those people I listed were dumber of the two, you'd obviously choose the first guy.

Originally posted by bigred760
The likelihood is probably greater, but is not set in stone - that's why you can't automatically assume anything about the person in general, only that the person's tastes in movies generally sucks. I would say that the person whose favorites are in the second list is more cultured, which probably means smarter, but not always.

Another possibility is that the person whose favorites are in the first list is younger . . . a kid.
I'm not denying any of this. You are 100% correct.

Originally posted by Servo
I actually wouldn't think too highly of the person with the second set of movies. Every film buff loves those films. It's nothing groundbreaking at all. Maybe if he had more movies on the list that came out before the 1970's that wasn't Kane and Samurai....
You don't have to think too highly of the person with the second set of movies, because he's not real. You're not supposed to be looking at him as this fully-fleshed out and 3-dimensional character. In fact, you can make your own list for the second guy.

Really, all I was trying to do was show that a person who likes dumb movies likely won't be as smart as a person who enjoys and appreciates smart movies. Simple as that..

I just think this all has to do more with taste than with intelligence. You're all acting like a bunch of elitists, saying that if you don't like the movies you like they're dumb, when that's completely and insanely wrong..
It's elitist to say that CITIZEN KANE is a smarter movie than DELTA FARCE? And that people who enjoy more movies like CITIZEN KANE will likely be smarter than those who enjoy more movies like DELTA FARCE?

Besides, someone with that prefers that second set of movies can be just as dumb as you'd perceive the person who preferred the first set.
I'm not denying this. I actually made a point that the second person would not be guaranteed smarter than the first. Only that it'd be a more likely possibility.

Originally posted by LordSimen
Neither has more likelihood than the other.
:rolleyes:

Someone can watch Citizen Kane and be a complete dumb ass just as someone can watch Delta Farce and be an intelligent rocket scientist. One's film taste does not reflect their intelligence, it merely reflects their personal tastes in films.
You keep using that awful "rocket scientist" example, and yet it makes no sense because I can guarantee you don't know any rocket scientists that went to see (and more importantly, enjoyed) DELTA FARCE.

And I never said that somebody who watches CITIZEN KANE couldn't be a complete dumbass. But if they enjoy, appreciate, and understand the film, they're likely to be more intelligent than those that spend their time seeing WILD HOGS and BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2.

(And no, not DEFINITELY, only LIKELY.)

Fred Durst, for example, lists Fight Club as one of his all time fravorite films and I'm 90% sure he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I did list many movies outside of FIGHT CLUB, and I did that for a reason. You don't have to be intelligent to enjoy FIGHT CLUB. It appeals to mass audiences, especially males. It was merely one example out of many.

Plus, Fred Durst has involvement in the movie industry. Two seconds in Google, and I found an article that mentions him having worked with David Fincher. Well, how about that?

Link: http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1518411/12162005/story.jhtml

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
I'm not very much of a book reader myself but one of my all-time favorite books is "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking.



What is the point of you saying this... to prove how smart you are?


And, why are you even posting here? You were banned years ago. It is against the rules to make new accounts once your banned, Justin King.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Quigles
:rolleyes:

If that's all you have to say, then go home now.

Originally posted by Quigles
You keep using that awful "rocket scientist" example, and yet it makes no sense because I can guarantee you don't know any rocket scientists that went to see (and more importantly, enjoyed) DELTA FARCE.

And I never said that somebody who watches CITIZEN KANE couldn't be a complete dumbass. But if they enjoy, appreciate, and understand the film, they're likely to be more intelligent than those that spend their time seeing WILD HOGS and BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2.

You keep using that awful incredibly one-sided example that you admit is one-sided. It's worst than my rocket scientist example. I gaurante you don't know anyone who lists those movies as their favorite movies in those exact orders and I gaurante you don't know their I.Q. if you do.

You implied, my friend, that someone who lists Citizen Kane as their favorite movie they are more likely not to be a dumb ass, and that's not true. You can be incredibly intelligent and still not enjoy that film or any of the other films you listed as under your biased list. I have a friend, if you want a specific example, whose favorite movie of the year was Dead or Alive because it had naked chicks beating the shit out of each other, and he's attending UC Berkley and is on his way to becoming a Doctor.

The fact is you don't know everyone so you have no place to say whether or not they're dumb for the movie choices they like, you're merely assuming.

Originally posted by Quigles

I did list many movies outside of FIGHT CLUB, and I did that for a reason. You don't have to be intelligent to enjoy FIGHT CLUB. It appeals to mass audiences, especially males. It was merely one example out of many.

Plus, Fred Durst has involvement in the movie industry. Two seconds in Google, and I found an article that mentions him having worked with David Fincher. Well, how about that?


Fight Club appeals to a mass audience? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. The movie in no way appeals to a mass audience, it's a film that asks a lot of the audience in watching it and I know many people who found the movie confusing and boring. I would never imply that these people were dumb for thinking that.

Okay, so maybe Fred Dursts' opinion is biased, but so is yours. Because you've only seen people who are dumb see Date Movie, you assume most are like that. Which is wrong.

It's elitist to say that CITIZEN KANE is a smarter movie than DELTA FARCE? And that people who enjoy more movies like CITIZEN KANE will likely be smarter than those who enjoy more movies like DELTA FARCE?

The first part, no, because it's merely your opinion on the films. The second part, yes, because that's you being judgemental on other people based on how much you approve of their film tastes. THAT'S ELITIST.

[Servo]

Originally posted by LordSimen


The first part, no, because it's merely your opinion on the films. The second part, yes, because that's you being judgemental on other people based on how much you approve of their film tastes. THAT'S ELITIST.

EXACTLY what I was trying to say.

[Quigles]

Originally posted by LordSimen
If that's all you have to say, then go home now.
...uh...

Just where exactly did you think I was typing from?

[Servo]

Originally posted by Quigles
...uh...

Just where exactly did you think I was typing from?

School, office, library, friend's house...you never know dude.

[AceD]

I'm not trying to hamper good discussion, but come on, people. If you were going to use some criteria to judge how smart someone is, where on that list would you want to know their favorite films? I mean, would it be in the top 50? Let's be honest, there are dozens of things that engage your mind more and deeper than a movie does. That's not a knock on anyone or anything, but there are certain limitations in the whole nature of a movie. I'm not saying movies can't make you think, but movies that actually make you think in a way that requires your intelligence are very few and far between (and ZODIAC is most certainly not one of them). I think movies can help you grow in your intelligence by showing new things or teaching new ideas (although again there are better ways than movies to do that).

"I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally when somebody prefers to see stupid movies over smart ones, they themselves are in fact more stupid than those that would rather see the smart films."

But that's so incredibly eliteist because you're implying that someone can state with absolute certainty what makes a film smart or not smart. You're sayiing that X is a stupid film, and Y is a smart one, so if you usually prefer the X films you are probably dumber than people who generally prefer the Y ones. That's absurd. That's like me saying (for example) that if you can't present me with a deep and detailed discussion of the finer points of 2-deep defensive scheme in football and I can, than I'm probably smarter than you. Or if (again, for example, I'm not saying you personally don't know about these things) you can't explain to me in flawless terms what makes Pollock's work different than you just splashing paint on a canvas, than I'm probably smarter than you. That doesn't make sense. No matter who you are talking to, they are going to be more knowledgeable about something and have difference taste than you are, and you can't just pick out one topic and claim that that supplies an accurate picture of their intelligence (and if you were going to, you CERTAINLY wouldn't use movies as that gauge).

Again, let me state I don't think there are very many indisputably "smart" films...someone a lot more intelligent than you may get a lot out of Waist Deep and nothing out of Fight Club, and that doesn't make them wrong or dumb. We're dealing with art, and you can't go around making blanket statements about what's good or smart and what isn't and expect to be taken seriously by intelligent people.

"It's elitist to say that CITIZEN KANE is a smarter movie than DELTA FARCE? And that people who enjoy more movies like CITIZEN KANE will likely be smarter than those who enjoy more movies like DELTA FARCE?"

To the first question, no, not really, but someone might find ATL to be a smarter movie, and in what they get out of it they may be right (again, since it's an opinon thing).

To the second question, of course it's eliteist to say that, mostly because you are talking about a medium that doesn't engage the mind as much as other stuff does, so it's not in any way the best way to judge someone's intellgence. Let's change the question around:

Will people who prefer to read and understand and enjoy writers like Dostoevsky instead of watching a movie generally be smarter than those people who prefer to watch and understand and enjoy movies like CITIZEN KANE rather than reading?

I think we all know that if you took a poll of intelligent people, the answer would be a resounding yes. I know that's a bit off topic, but let's stop acting like we're discussing the most depthful artform on the planet. The fact is, people more intelligent than anyone on these boards may be bored stiff with CITIZEN KANE and own WILD HOGS and love it.
The # problem here is we don't really respect others opinions.

[Quigles]

AceD, you make some very good points. I think I'm actually starting to come around on your side of the fence on this matter.

However, just to make a point, nobody here was trying to say that movie tastes were the best judge of a person's intelligence; just that they do correlate.

[AceD]

"However, just to make a point, nobody here was trying to say that movie tastes were the best judge of a person's intelligence; just that they do correlate."

I get that, and I should have been more adament that that part of my post was a little off topic. Here's the bottom line here:

I think that you, Quigles, are an intelligent person based on reading what you write on the boards, but for the sake of this discussion based on your DVD reviews. Do I always agree with you? Of course not, but becuase you can discuss them in an intellgent way and make sound arguments for WHY you feel that way, I can say you are intelligent, even if I think a film you loved is garbage, or vice versa. It's not your opinon of films or your list of favorite films that makes me respect your opinon, it is the way you articulate your opinion. In my mind that's what makes any critic good (and Roger Ebert the king) -- being good at laying out your opinions and why you have them.

So I think the conclusion we can reach here is that it's not the films on your top ten list that make you intelligent, it's the way you can tell me why (and whether it's KANE or FLUBBER, 'it's awesome' doesn't count as a a reason). Now of course it'd be stretch to make a case for the brilliance of DELTA FARCE, but not as impossible to make the case for a lot of other mainstream movies that many here might write off as dumb right away. For example, a middle-of-the-road film like BOILER ROOM. I think it's phenomenal because it's flawlessly acted, tightly written, deftly executed, and with extreme subltety, a great picture of friendships between men who never really grew up from their playground roles. You may say it's trite, predictable, overacted and totally un-subtle in the way it tracks the rise and fall of a kid with wide eyes. It's not our opinons about anything that makes us smart, it's our ability to convey our thoughts to other people that is a true mark of intelligence.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally posted by AceD
"However, just to make a point, nobody here was trying to say that movie tastes were the best judge of a person's intelligence; just that they do correlate."

I get that, and I should have been more adament that that part of my post was a little off topic. Here's the bottom line here:

I think that you, Quigles, are an intelligent person based on reading what you write on the boards, but for the sake of this discussion based on your DVD reviews. Do I always agree with you? Of course not, but becuase you can discuss them in an intellgent way and make sound arguments for WHY you feel that way, I can say you are intelligent, even if I think a film you loved is garbage, or vice versa. It's not your opinon of films or your list of favorite films that makes me respect your opinon, it is the way you articulate your opinion. In my mind that's what makes any critic good (and Roger Ebert the king) -- being good at laying out your opinions and why you have them.

So I think the conclusion we can reach here is that it's not the films on your top ten list that make you intelligent, it's the way you can tell me why (and whether it's KANE or FLUBBER, 'it's awesome' doesn't count as a a reason). Now of course it'd be stretch to make a case for the brilliance of DELTA FARCE, but not as impossible to make the case for a lot of other mainstream movies that many here might write off as dumb right away. For example, a middle-of-the-road film like BOILER ROOM. I think it's phenomenal because it's flawlessly acted, tightly written, deftly executed, and with extreme subltety, a great picture of friendships between men who never really grew up from their playground roles. You may say it's trite, predictable, overacted and totally un-subtle in the way it tracks the rise and fall of a kid with wide eyes. It's not our opinons about anything that makes us smart, it's our ability to convey our thoughts to other people that is a true mark of intelligence.

Very good points there. You know, someone might actually get more out of the film Flubber than Fight Club, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try seeing different films they're not used to. My agitation doesn't stem from people who watch movies like Flubber or Date Movie, it comes from people who watch those films and ignore all other kinds. This could also be said of people who watch any one kind of movie, (even those perceived as intelligent) and don't watch anything else. I know that movies wouldn't be the first thing you would use to measure intelligence, but if someone limits themselves to one genre in an art medium then their narrow vision on things usually follows suit in many other aspects of their life. A question to ask people who only prefer one type of something would be, could you tell me why you haven't tried being exposed to another type of something?

[AceD]

"My agitation doesn't stem from people who watch movies like Flubber or Date Movie, it comes from people who watch those films and ignore all other kinds. This could also be said of people who watch any one kind of movie, (even those perceived as intelligent) and don't watch anything else"

That's a very important point to make. If you only watch "smart" films, please don't kid yourself, all you are doing is listening to what the movie culture tells you is smart and watching those films. Now, I'm not saying you should intentionally see BAD movies, no one does that. I am saying, however, just as it is totally ridulous to gush all over a film before it's realeased, it's just as if not more stupid to write a film off based just on its trailer, director, etc. I'm not saying we ignore those things, but you can't just write them off. For example, if you heard that a guy who made a lousy TV "horror" movie and directed a few episodes of shows like "Marcus Welby, M.D." "Owen Marshall: Counselor at Law" and "The Phsychiatrist" was making an allegedly scary movie about a shark that eats people, you might quickly write it off, which obviously, in retrospect, would be a mistake. Now, I'm not saying you need to go be teh first in line to Uwe Boll's next flick, but simply ignoring everything after you hear his name doesn't make you a wise filmgoer, just a closed-minded one.

For the record, I don't think Uwe Boll will make a great film. but you never know.

[Jim H]

That's a very important point to make. If you only watch "smart" films, please don't kid yourself, all you are doing is listening to what the movie culture tells you is smart and watching those films.

That's something I heartily agree with. I've met a number of people who have nothing but contempt for all popular cinema (A LOT of them... Read the imdb boards sometime if you want to hear from them), and it simply baffles me. There are people out there that think if a movie is designed to entertain, all the craftsmanship and skill involved is automatically null and void.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Originally posted by LordSimen
And how is that a bad thing? Perhaps they aren't into art. Maybe they're an athlete and into other forms of life. Not everyone is an artist nor is everyone who is into art more sophisticated than those who aren't. A freakin' rocket scientist could be the smartest person on the planet and still go home and watch Date Movie.

That makes no sense at all. Being an artist makes you sophisticated. If you're an artist who's not engaged by intelligent movies/books/music/etc., you're probably not a very good artist. And someone's who's a really great scientist and goes beyond just having gotten good grades in school isn't going to like bullshit either. I know non-film buffs like this.

Logically, very smart people are engaged by things that they think are smart. As much pointless sex, explosions, blood and guns there is in one movie, they will usually prefer to take the smart movie. And I'm not trying to put down anyone since almost everyone on these boards at least thinks that the movies they love are smart and of a high quality.

And I'm also sick of hearing shit with the "most people go to movies just to be entertained" excuse. All movies are made to entertain. Even if a movie is trying to say something, it has to draw in its audience by entertaining them. And entertainment doesn't mean enjoyment or pleasure. Eraserhead, I Spit on Your Grave and The Last House on the Left are not pleasurable films but, as perverted and massacistic as it may sound, they are entertainment.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
That makes no sense at all. Being an artist makes you sophisticated.




How?

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
That makes no sense at all. Being an artist makes you sophisticated. If you're an artist who's not engaged by intelligent movies/books/music/etc., you're probably not a very good artist. And someone's who's a really great scientist and goes beyond just having gotten good grades in school isn't going to like bullshit either. I know non-film buffs like this.

No. Being an artist does not make you any more or less sophisticated or intelligent than not being an artist. There are plenty of "artists" out there who I'm sure YOU believe are idiots and have no class.

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
Logically, very smart people are engaged by things that they think are smart. As much pointless sex, explosions, blood and guns there is in one movie, they will usually prefer to take the smart movie. And I'm not trying to put down anyone since almost everyone on these boards at least thinks that the movies they love are smart and of a high quality.

No, that is not logical. Some people like to have a release every once and a while, and for all you know that person's release could be movies and that's why they aren't into movies such as Citizen Kane because it asks you to be involved rather than sit back and enjoy. A smart person does not neccessarily mean they will prefer the smart movie.

Furthermore, what one person finds to be a smart movie is completely subjective.

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
And I'm also sick of hearing shit with the "most people go to movies just to be entertained" excuse. All movies are made to entertain. Even if a movie is trying to say something, it has to draw in its audience by entertaining them. And entertainment doesn't mean enjoyment or pleasure. Eraserhead, I Spit on Your Grave and The Last House on the Left are not pleasurable films but, as perverted and massacistic as it may sound, they are entertainment.

MOST PEOPLE DO GO TO SEE MOVIES TO BE ENTERTAINED. THAT'S WHY MOVIES LIKE DATE MOVIE ARE POPULAR AND WHY ACTION MOVIES REIGN IN THE SUMMER BUCKS. Not everyone wants to go see a movie to watch a math quiz, some people just like to sit back and watch a story unfold and eat some popcorn. Not everyone is obsessed with films like you, me, or everyone else on this board are.

[RicochetShaw]

Just for the record, the smartest person I know happens to love the movie Bio-Dome. Infact, it's his favorite film. Without doubt, his intellectual capacity exceeds anyone who has posted in this thread. The thesis of Quigles, Big Mag, Fat Sak, and everyone on that camp - who thinks only dumbasses like dumb movies, is just pain wrong. If it makes you feel smarter to show how much you like smart cinema on a movie discussion board, then knock yourself out. But really, you're not proving anything.

[Scarfather]

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/2528/chimpzu8.jpg

My art is poo flinging. Am I sophisticated?

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Scarfather
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/2528/chimpzu8.jpg

My art is poo flinging. Am I sophisticated?

Best. Post. Ever.

[Quigles]

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
The thesis of Quigles, Big Mag, Fat Sak, and everyone on that camp - who thinks only dumbasses like dumb movies, is just pain wrong. If it makes you feel smarter to show how much you like smart cinema on a movie discussion board, then knock yourself out. But really, you're not proving anything.
I never said that only dumbasses like dumb movies. You're taking a simple point that several of us on these boards were trying to make, and turning it into an extreme.

It'd be pretty foolish of me to claim that enjoying dumb movies automatically makes you stupid, seeing as how I myself have seen and loved SHOOT 'EM UP, TRANSFORMERS, CRANK, SNAKES ON A PLANE, CON AIR, and a ton of others.

And for the record, I actually said earlier that AceD made a compelling enough argument for me to understand what you guys were trying to say, and that I've come around on the issue.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
That makes no sense at all. Being an artist makes you sophisticated. If you're an artist who's not engaged by intelligent movies/books/music/etc., you're probably not a very good artist. And someone's who's a really great scientist and goes beyond just having gotten good grades in school isn't going to like bullshit either. I know non-film buffs like this.

Depends on the artist and on what you call art. Tattoos are considered art by many people, but many people who go to art houses and the opera wouldn't consider tattoo parlors very sophisticated.


Logically, very smart people are engaged by things that they think are smart. As much pointless sex, explosions, blood and guns there is in one movie, they will usually prefer to take the smart movie. And I'm not trying to put down anyone since almost everyone on these boards at least thinks that the movies they love are smart and of a high quality.

Does that mean that dumb people aren't engaged by things they think are smart?

Smart people always go for the smart movie? If that's what you meant, than I think that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Smart people will go to the movies they think will be entertaining.


And I'm also sick of hearing shit with the "most people go to movies just to be entertained" excuse. All movies are made to entertain. Even if a movie is trying to say something, it has to draw in its audience by entertaining them.[b][quote]

I'm sick of hearing the people saying they're sick with the "most people go to movies just to be entertained" excuse. You said it yourself . . . all movies are made to entertain (though I don't think a lot of documentaries are). People will go to movies they think they will enjoy; if they get a kick out of "smart" movies, if they consider "smart" movies entertaining, then they will go to them. If smart people consider Alien vs. Predator entertaining, they will go and see it. It's all about personal taste.

[b][quote]
And entertainment doesn't mean enjoyment or pleasure. Eraserhead, I Spit on Your Grave and The Last House on the Left are not pleasurable films but, as perverted and massacistic as it may sound, they are entertainment.

This makes no sense to me. They're perverted and masochistic because they find those movies pleasurable . . . or entertainment. Again, all about the opinions, not intelligence.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
That makes no sense at all. Being an artist makes you sophisticated.


Still waiting for your explanation on this, Mac.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Originally posted by bigred760
Depends on the artist and on what you call art. Tattoos are considered art by many people, but many people who go to art houses and the opera wouldn't consider tattoo parlors very sophisticated.


Well, that is what I mean. If comedy was an art, Dane Cook and Carlos Mencia wouldn't necessarily have any desire to see 2001: A Space Odyssey. Nor an artist who flings poo.



Does that mean that dumb people aren't engaged by things they think are smart?

Smart people always go for the smart movie? If that's what you meant, than I think that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Smart people will go to the movies they think will be entertaining.

No smart people do go to dumb movies and end up liking some of them a lot. But, with most, I imagine the quality that does or doesn't prevail throughout its stupidity would play a factor into how much they like it. But smart people are, of course, more indifferent towards how complex and difficult a film is. There are more movies to choose from, a perk of intelligence.

And while a dumb person may enjoy and even follow the plots of smart movies like Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, or The Departed, it's usually just because they're "cool" movies. They usually fail to grasp the underlying thematic richness of such films.

To quote Hubert Selby, Jr. (as best as I can remember), "You can cram as much information as you want into your brain, but you have to turn it into wisdom!" This principle can easily transcend to watching movies.



This makes no sense to me. They're perverted and masochistic because they find those movies pleasurable . . . or entertainment. Again, all about the opinions, not intelligence.

You have to look at entertainment as a form of engagement in something, not necessarily as a means of enjoyment. It's just another difference between a simple-minded moviegoer and a smart moviegoer. Most people go to movies to enjoy themselves. They rarely go to an unpleasant movie unless it stirs up enough talk and/or controversy, like say The Exorcist (which isn't even scary in a fun way). There's nothing really wrong with that, but, a person who's smart enough will go (or should go) to see a movie that's supposed to be extremely good even if it's not exactly light-hearted fare.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
Being an artist makes you sophisticated.

You just made that piss christ dude's day

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Since the word 'intelligence' is being thrown around a lot I might as well add my two cents.


intelligence |in?telij?ns| noun
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

intellect |?intl?ekt| noun
the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters.



There is a HUGE difference between intelligence and intellect, make no mistake about it. Some of the dumbest people I ever met were in AP classes and went on to great colleges. Just because somebody knows a lot does not mean they are not incapable of being MORONS in the scheme of things.

Someone with intellect, however, is waaaayyy more likely to have more sophisticated taste in the arts. This is a fact. If you disagree, then you have neither intelligence nor intellect. Just because your friend's cousin's boss or some guy you knew in college is an exception to the rule does not mean a thing.

Let's ask the question similar to the one that Quigles asked earlier. Let's say you're hanging out with Stephen Hawking one night and you ask if he wants to watch a movie. You give him two choices and it's between La Dolce Vita and House Party 4, which would you be willing to bet on? If you say "OH IT DOESN'T MATTER FOR ALL YOU KNOW HE COULD CARE LESS" then you are completely clueless. Some intellectuals don't care, and it's true like AceD mentioned that a sophisticated taste in movies does not mean you have intellect or intelligence, but if you honestly think Stephen Hawking's chances of choosing House Party 4 are equal, then you are really fucking dumb.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
E difference between intelligence and intellect, make no mistake about it. Some of the dumbest people I ever met were in AP classes and went on to great colleges. Just because somebody knows a lot does not mean they are not incapable of being MORONS in the scheme of things.



What does that even mean - "in the grand scheme of things"? I'm guessing you mean your own personal judgment? I'm not sure that's so objective, since it's coming from some one who's stuck in SC and not going to an elite college (that's my educated guess anyway) - I'd imagine you're a bit bitter towards these "morons".... could possibly influence your outlook on them.

[someguy]

Well the smartest person I know is a large fan of Ingmar Bergman!!!

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
What does that even mean - "in the grand scheme of things"? I'm guessing you mean your own personal judgment? I'm not sure that's so objective, since it's coming from some one who's stuck in SC and not going to an elite college (that's my educated guess anyway) - I'd imagine you're a bit bitter towards these "morons".... could possibly influence your outlook on them.


I find it hilarious you would consider a potshot at religion so insulting yet you also think anywhere in South Carolina (by the way, I go to college in North Carolina) is filled with fucking hicks and idiots. It's certainly understandable that from all the idiotic bile that you write why everyone uses smilies at the end of their posts. No wonder more people are converting to atheism.

Counter-argue all you want, this is my last post.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
Just for the record, the smartest person I know happens to love the movie Bio-Dome. Infact, it's his favorite film. Without doubt, his intellectual capacity exceeds anyone who has posted in this thread. The thesis of Quigles, Big Mag, Fat Sak, and everyone on that camp - who thinks only dumbasses like dumb movies, is just pain wrong. If it makes you feel smarter to show how much you like smart cinema on a movie discussion board, then knock yourself out. But really, you're not proving anything.

If the smartest person you've ever met has Bio-Dome as his favorite movie, then you should seriously start finding new people to hang out with.

[Scarfather]

I can personally attest that there are just as many if not horrendously more, ignorant, stupid fucking people in Florida then any other state.

And the universities are fucking terrible.

[corran horn]

My, this is an interesting thread! I think I'll add my contribution.

I fully understand what LordSimen is saying, but I have to admit I gravitate more to FatSak and Quigle's POV. In my case, I've been blessed to have friends who by and large share my tastes and interests (not perfectly, but there's at least an 80% overlap). They, by and large, avoid "stupid fare" and even when they see it (usually out of guilty pleasure or curiosity) they usually don't insist on dragging me along b/c they know and respect my tastes.

For me, it comes down to a two-part question: Is what I'm about to see worth my time and money (I've the reputation of being an impatient cheapskate) AND (perhaps more important) Is that film an insult to my intelligence and will it attract an ungodly number of idiots? For me, brainy fare can range from a well-done crime drama (Departed, Goodfellas,etc) to a political movie (Syriana) to a fantasy epic (LOTR) to the occassional superhero movie (Batman Begins and the first 2 Supermen). To qualify as brainy fare, a film must have the following: good performances, an engaging story/screenplay, respectable production values, and (if the genre requires it) professionally-done special effects. Having said that, I do, on occasion, enjoy the occassional guilty pleasure: usually in the form of a SCIFI Channel Original (makes for the perfect MST3K evening) or the odd ARMY OF DARKNESS rental.

However, I will say that there are far more glaring signs of America's declining intelligence than it's taste in movies (though that is the most pertinent to this site's purpose).

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by AceD
I'm not trying to hamper good discussion, but come on, people. If you were going to use some criteria to judge how smart someone is, where on that list would you want to know their favorite films? I mean, would it be in the top 50? Let's be honest, there are dozens of things that engage your mind more and deeper than a movie does. That's not a knock on anyone or anything, but there are certain limitations in the whole nature of a movie. I'm not saying movies can't make you think, but movies that actually make you think in a way that requires your intelligence are very few and far between (and ZODIAC is most certainly not one of them). I think movies can help you grow in your intelligence by showing new things or teaching new ideas (although again there are better ways than movies to do that).

"I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally when somebody prefers to see stupid movies over smart ones, they themselves are in fact more stupid than those that would rather see the smart films."

But that's so incredibly eliteist because you're implying that someone can state with absolute certainty what makes a film smart or not smart. You're sayiing that X is a stupid film, and Y is a smart one, so if you usually prefer the X films you are probably dumber than people who generally prefer the Y ones. That's absurd. That's like me saying (for example) that if you can't present me with a deep and detailed discussion of the finer points of 2-deep defensive scheme in football and I can, than I'm probably smarter than you. Or if (again, for example, I'm not saying you personally don't know about these things) you can't explain to me in flawless terms what makes Pollock's work different than you just splashing paint on a canvas, than I'm probably smarter than you. That doesn't make sense. No matter who you are talking to, they are going to be more knowledgeable about something and have difference taste than you are, and you can't just pick out one topic and claim that that supplies an accurate picture of their intelligence (and if you were going to, you CERTAINLY wouldn't use movies as that gauge).

Again, let me state I don't think there are very many indisputably "smart" films...someone a lot more intelligent than you may get a lot out of Waist Deep and nothing out of Fight Club, and that doesn't make them wrong or dumb. We're dealing with art, and you can't go around making blanket statements about what's good or smart and what isn't and expect to be taken seriously by intelligent people.

"It's elitist to say that CITIZEN KANE is a smarter movie than DELTA FARCE? And that people who enjoy more movies like CITIZEN KANE will likely be smarter than those who enjoy more movies like DELTA FARCE?"

To the first question, no, not really, but someone might find ATL to be a smarter movie, and in what they get out of it they may be right (again, since it's an opinon thing).

To the second question, of course it's eliteist to say that, mostly because you are talking about a medium that doesn't engage the mind as much as other stuff does, so it's not in any way the best way to judge someone's intellgence. Let's change the question around:

Will people who prefer to read and understand and enjoy writers like Dostoevsky instead of watching a movie generally be smarter than those people who prefer to watch and understand and enjoy movies like CITIZEN KANE rather than reading?

I think we all know that if you took a poll of intelligent people, the answer would be a resounding yes. I know that's a bit off topic, but let's stop acting like we're discussing the most depthful artform on the planet. The fact is, people more intelligent than anyone on these boards may be bored stiff with CITIZEN KANE and own WILD HOGS and love it.
The # problem here is we don't really respect others opinions.


Great, great post.

[AceD]

Thank you, sir.

[hoojib127]

Having read most of the posts in this thread, I thought I'd add my two cents.

Both sides of this debate have presented valid points, though I have to say I'm more on the side of FatSak's, Quigles', et al. First off, from what I've experienced in life, I feel there are different KINDS of intelligence/intellect, and not everyone is well-attuned in some as in others (some aren't really well-attuned to any, but I digress). One form we'll call "numbers intelligence," i.e. LordSimen's rocket scientist; i.e. one who's more into the math/science side of things. Then there's "aesthetic intelligence," which refers more to artistic perception and attunement. Everyone has a 'specialty' category that excells over other categories. So it is in fact possible for a rocket scientist to go home and watch (cringe) Date Movie, but it may be because his aesthetic intelligence isn't as well-honed...and it also could be purely by choice.

I'm also tired of the whole concept of movies being a 'diversion' from everyday life, particularly dumb movies. I mean, if your life is that stressful to you, I'd question some of the decisions you made to get to that point. Is it the family? Well, it's not written that procreation is mandatory. Is it the job? Well, I thought people were supposed to LIKE the careers they chose...though I'll never fathom why, after finally finishing school, some people go out and get jobs that are almost EXACTLY like school (e.g. corporate business, etc.). I've usually found that the people who see all those stupid movies are almost never interested in seeing the more thought-provoking, artistically-inclined ones. My roommate is that way. Since he's a chef, I've tried to make the arguments that 'watching nothing but these kinds of movies is the equivalent of eating at Burger King EVERY DAY'...and 'why would you get a Whopper if you could get prime rib at the same price?' But it doesn't seem to get it. Of course, his aesthetic intelligence is definitely not very high (he got confused by The Prestige, for pete's sake).

As for myself, I saw my fair share of decent easy-on-the-mind movies growing up in the 80's and 90's. I saw a good portion of the Kentucky Fried Movies and the Money Pits and the I.Q.s and the Con Airs. But then after I got out of college I had the epiphany that life is too short to be wasting on all these frivolous movies when there are so many other, greater ones out there. I'll still revisit those old childhood/teenage favorites every once in a while, but now I'm more interested in the ones that genuinely have something to say. Unfortunately, it seems I'm in the minority. As Campbell Scott's character raved in The Dying Gaul, 'nobody goes to the movies to have a bad time...or to LEARN anything.' Seems to me if they didn't learn it in school (even if it was taught to them), it must not be important. :(

[ChickFlick]

Wow, this is some thread.

I don't understand how someone could categorize a person as intelligent or unintelligent based on the movies they like. I for one, like to relax and watch a fun no-brainer movie. I'm a grad student, and constantly deep in thought about one thing or another, and I find it relaxing to come home and watch How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (I'm a chick, don't worry). I'm plenty intellectually stimulated at school and when I'm studying or writing a paper, and I like to watch fun movies afterwards to let my brain relax for two hours or so. It's not that I'm dumb, and just because someone can enjoy HTLAG doesn't mean they can't also enjoy a great movie like The Godfather. It does not reflect a person's intelligence at all.

Also, you're basing people's tastes on BO. How do you know that every person who went to see Wild Hogs came out loving it, or liking it? Just because it made that much, doesn't mean every person walking out of the theater was satisfied. I personally hate to see thought-provoking movies in the theater, because there's always some sort of distraction that makes me not able to give my full attention to the movie. I tend to see fun movies in the theater and save the more serious ones for DVD and to view them at home.

[AceD]

"First off, from what I've experienced in life, I feel there are different KINDS of intelligence/intellect, and not everyone is well-attuned in some as in others (some aren't really well-attuned to any, but I digress). One form we'll call "numbers intelligence," i.e. LordSimen's rocket scientist; i.e. one who's more into the math/science side of things. Then there's "aesthetic intelligence," which refers more to artistic perception and attunement."

I totally get what you are saying here and to a point I agree, but the enormous problem you run into is that at some point you have to put your foot down and say X is an aestheticly intelligent movie (and from what you are saying, therefore more worthy of your time), and Y is not. If it's art, then you can't quantify and label that much, and if you do, as I said before, then the problem is that you don't accept other opinions.

"I thought people were supposed to LIKE the careers they chose...though I'll never fathom why, after finally finishing school, some people go out and get jobs that are almost EXACTLY like school (e.g. corporate business, etc.). "

Well, some people like school quite a bit, and some love the coporate setting, and I don't think anyone will ever find a job that they love EVERYTHING about, but I agree that just grabbing something because it's safe or easy or whatever is stupid. However, similar to the stuff above, the person who is a corporate salesman may be much smarter, happier, and more fulfilling of his dreams than the artist is.

"I've usually found that the people who see all those stupid movies are almost never interested in seeing the more thought-provoking, artistically-inclined ones. My roommate is that way. Since he's a chef, I've tried to make the arguments that 'watching nothing but these kinds of movies is the equivalent of eating at Burger King EVERY DAY'...and 'why would you get a Whopper if you could get prime rib at the same price?' But it doesn't seem to get it. "

Well, again (and I realize this is just an example you threw out) the problem is that eating Burger King every day is bad for you, absolutely, unquestionably. But movies (or any kind of art) are not so easily labeled. As I've stated earlier in this thread, the movies that are actually intelligent and have something original or worthwhile to say and do so in an engaging way are very, very, very rare, as in, I'm not sure that one comes every year. I'm not saying movies are not thought-provoking (many are), but that is not the hardest thing in the world to do, and again I can't think of too many movies that offer thought-provoking subjects that are worth the average person's time or aren't better explored in other forms of art.

"Of course, his aesthetic intelligence is definitely not very high (he got confused by The Prestige, for pete's sake)."

Okay, I promise I'm not just messing with you here (i.e. I realize this is a little cute), but what if the reason it confused your friend was because the movie just didn't engage or entertain him (perhaps because he's too smart and therefore bored by it, or whatever)?

"I'm more interested in the ones that genuinely have something to say. Unfortunately, it seems I'm in the minority. As Campbell Scott's character raved in The Dying Gaul, 'nobody goes to the movies to have a bad time...or to LEARN anything.' Seems to me if they didn't learn it in school (even if it was taught to them), it must not be important."

Well, as I've said a few times now, if you are limiting yourself to movies that actually have something worthwhile to say, you aren't going to have a whole lot of movies to watch.

Regarding the Campbell Scott statement...Yes, there is an unfathomable amount of stuff to learn outside of a textbook, but about .000001% of that stuff is covered in movies better than it's covered in books or art or actual relationships. Now, don't get me wrong, movies can affect people on an individual level, but you can't label what does what. Someone may glean insight into friendship or chivalry from something as seemingly silly as CON AIR and then be bored stiff and get nothing from THE FOUNTAIN. And that person may be the smartest person on the planet, no matter the definition you use. The point is that aesthetic intelligence is an absolutely legit thing that is a reflection of the person and not from what they watch or what they get out of what they watch. There are things written that claim PULP FICTION to be the best display of Biblical grace, and others who say the movies is the best example of the insanity of religion in any form. Both of those parties probably draw things out of the movie that Tarantino never intended (I really think this happens a lot in movies...toss something in there, and take credit when a viewer draws something out of it). what they get out of it has no refletion on their intelligence. None.

[dreamcurls]

most IMDBer's are also young jerks with no taste who all think they know better than everyone else and will start an argument over nothing and bascically put you down for just about anything you say

[dreamcurls]

Originally posted by Scarfather
I can personally attest that there are just as many if not horrendously more, ignorant, stupid fucking people in Florida then any other state.

And the universities are fucking terrible.

:p

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by AceD
"First off, from what I've experienced in life, I feel there are different KINDS of intelligence/intellect, and not everyone is well-attuned in some as in others (some aren't really well-attuned to any, but I digress). One form we'll call "numbers intelligence," i.e. LordSimen's rocket scientist; i.e. one who's more into the math/science side of things. Then there's "aesthetic intelligence," which refers more to artistic perception and attunement."

I totally get what you are saying here and to a point I agree, but the enormous problem you run into is that at some point you have to put your foot down and say X is an aestheticly intelligent movie (and from what you are saying, therefore more worthy of your time), and Y is not. If it's art, then you can't quantify and label that much, and if you do, as I said before, then the problem is that you don't accept other opinions.

"I thought people were supposed to LIKE the careers they chose...though I'll never fathom why, after finally finishing school, some people go out and get jobs that are almost EXACTLY like school (e.g. corporate business, etc.). "

Well, some people like school quite a bit, and some love the coporate setting, and I don't think anyone will ever find a job that they love EVERYTHING about, but I agree that just grabbing something because it's safe or easy or whatever is stupid. However, similar to the stuff above, the person who is a corporate salesman may be much smarter, happier, and more fulfilling of his dreams than the artist is.

"I've usually found that the people who see all those stupid movies are almost never interested in seeing the more thought-provoking, artistically-inclined ones. My roommate is that way. Since he's a chef, I've tried to make the arguments that 'watching nothing but these kinds of movies is the equivalent of eating at Burger King EVERY DAY'...and 'why would you get a Whopper if you could get prime rib at the same price?' But it doesn't seem to get it. "

Well, again (and I realize this is just an example you threw out) the problem is that eating Burger King every day is bad for you, absolutely, unquestionably. But movies (or any kind of art) are not so easily labeled. As I've stated earlier in this thread, the movies that are actually intelligent and have something original or worthwhile to say and do so in an engaging way are very, very, very rare, as in, I'm not sure that one comes every year. I'm not saying movies are not thought-provoking (many are), but that is not the hardest thing in the world to do, and again I can't think of too many movies that offer thought-provoking subjects that are worth the average person's time or aren't better explored in other forms of art.

"Of course, his aesthetic intelligence is definitely not very high (he got confused by The Prestige, for pete's sake)."

Okay, I promise I'm not just messing with you here (i.e. I realize this is a little cute), but what if the reason it confused your friend was because the movie just didn't engage or entertain him (perhaps because he's too smart and therefore bored by it, or whatever)?

"I'm more interested in the ones that genuinely have something to say. Unfortunately, it seems I'm in the minority. As Campbell Scott's character raved in The Dying Gaul, 'nobody goes to the movies to have a bad time...or to LEARN anything.' Seems to me if they didn't learn it in school (even if it was taught to them), it must not be important."

Well, as I've said a few times now, if you are limiting yourself to movies that actually have something worthwhile to say, you aren't going to have a whole lot of movies to watch.

Regarding the Campbell Scott statement...Yes, there is an unfathomable amount of stuff to learn outside of a textbook, but about .000001% of that stuff is covered in movies better than it's covered in books or art or actual relationships. Now, don't get me wrong, movies can affect people on an individual level, but you can't label what does what. Someone may glean insight into friendship or chivalry from something as seemingly silly as CON AIR and then be bored stiff and get nothing from THE FOUNTAIN. And that person may be the smartest person on the planet, no matter the definition you use. The point is that aesthetic intelligence is an absolutely legit thing that is a reflection of the person and not from what they watch or what they get out of what they watch. There are things written that claim PULP FICTION to be the best display of Biblical grace, and others who say the movies is the best example of the insanity of religion in any form. Both of those parties probably draw things out of the movie that Tarantino never intended (I really think this happens a lot in movies...toss something in there, and take credit when a viewer draws something out of it). what they get out of it has no refletion on their intelligence. None.


I said I was done with this thread but I feel the need to reply.

You are right. Taste does not necessarily correlate with intelligence or intellect or wisdom with films as much as it does other things. However, people who can analyze and interpret films on completely different levels than others are indeed intelligent in their own way. They may not be able to read Finnegan's Wake, or do Calculus, but they do possess some sort of knowledge that many people do not. This is a fact. It doesn't mean that somebody who reads Finnegan's Wake or does Calculus isn't smart because they don't want to bother analyzing movies like Contempt or La Dolce Vita. There are plenty of people who are weak when it comes to analyzing or interpreting art, and many of them are geniuses in other areas, but it's still a skill and you can't take that away.

Film is another art form....fact. Aesthetic intelligence still reflects intelligence, even if it is on a more personal level.

[AceD]

"Taste does not necessarily correlate with intelligence or intellect or wisdom with films as much as it does other things. However, people who can analyze and interpret films on completely different levels than others are indeed intelligent in their own way."

I have no problem with any of that.

"They may not be able to read Finnegan's Wake, or do Calculus, but they do possess some sort of knowledge that many people do not. This is a fact. It doesn't mean that somebody who reads Finnegan's Wake or does Calculus isn't smart because they don't want to bother analyzing movies like Contempt or La Dolce Vita. There are plenty of people who are weak when it comes to analyzing or interpreting art, and many of them are geniuses in other areas, but it's still a skill and you can't take that away."

First of all, I don't think Calculus is art in any sense, but whatever. I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. I think the ability to analyze and interpret art is totally legitimate and absolutely a skill many do not have. But all of that is seperate from the specific art they view, in the sense that the art they choose to view doesn't reflect their intelligence, because of course it's not their fault if they just end up viewing art that sucks. Sometimes they may be required, for whatever reason, to watch something empty and stale, or perhaps they choose to view something else, for whatever reason, but again what they watch doesn't change their intelligence, and I don't want to tell them what they SHOULD prefer to watch, or what is good art and what isn't. I'll make those decisions for me, of course, but I won't impose them on others (and certainly not on people who can make an intelligent analysis of art). The biggest thing I dispute is the idea that 'intelligent people will more than likely rather watch X than Y.' Otherwise I agree with what you are saying, Brando.

However (and this may spiral a whole other direction), while just as I said above I wouldn't tell someone that they must read X or Y book to be well-read, I do believe that one cannot be a fully effective evaluator of film without being well read (if for no other reason than to know the history of storytelling). You know the idea of the only way to critique a movie is to make another one? If nothing else, one better have experience to draw from when analyzing any type of art.

[JCPhoenix]

Let me throw my two cents in:

I watch movies to be entertained. Plain and simple. That is my #1 factor in watching a movie. I obviously have to enjoy watching movies to be a film buff.

I personally think that everyone watches movies for enjoyment/entertainment first and foremost. I just can't fathom sitting down to watch a movie, being bored out of your skull, and still liking it when all is said and done. If a movie bores me, there's no way it's a movie I'll like.

That said, it just so happens that what entertains me the most is the more intriguing dramas/mysteries/thrillers of the fall Oscar season. I know people normally watch action movies and comedies to be entertained - but for me, the fall movies are more entertaining than the action movies and comedies of the summer. That extra stimulation to my brain (and I know some people may differ on this, but I generally feel that the fall movies tend to be more stimulating for your mind) is what provides the entertainment for me - I enjoy the process of working things out. The other way that fall movies entertain me more in general is that they tend to be more atmospheric pieces - I just happen to really love mood pieces as they absorb me into the film like that more than anything else.

But that's the only criteria I can think of and it just so happens that some people get more out of the action movies and comedies of the summer - something about those movies just switches on the entertainment level for them, I guess. Or maybe they like the adrenaline rush of an action movie.

What it boils down to is just what we all find individually entertaining. I feel like people watch movies for pleasure - everyone's brains are wired differently so therefore, everyone will find different things entertaining. But I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with their intelligence.

Keep in mind that the movies we consider "smart" and "great" are considered "smart" and "great" because of a majority consensus of opinions over time that declare them as just that. That's all. There is no *fact* saying that Citizen Kane and The Godfather are masterpieces. It's all based in majority opinions (not to pull the "it's just an opinion" card) though those opinions can be backed up with examples from the film. But while there are many people who love Citizen Kane and The Godfather, there's always going to be a part of the population that doesn't (just like every film) - and can perhaps back up their opinions from the film. Citizen Kane being a groundbreaking milestone in film? That, is something that is less easily disputed.

But (and I really am trying not to bring this movie up a lot but it just happens to fit this perfectly) take a movie like Crash which has divided viewers but won Best Picture. The majority consensus is that it's a masterpiece. I would be in that dissenting population that believes it to be trash (and I can and have backed up my opinions many times with specific examples from the film). Does the fact that I don't like Crash make me dumb? What about the other way around; look at it from my perspective. Could I not see all the Crash-lovers as being dumb for liking the film? Cause maybe I think the smart person would actually dislike Crash. Whereas the person who loves Crash would think the smart person would actually like Crash.

All I'm saying is that what we naturally assume to be masterpieces and great films are always fluctuating. When 2001 came out, it was considered a failure. Look at it now. A "great" film is not a fact, it just tends to be the majority consensus so I find it hard to give the criteria for someone being smart as them liking certain films like The Godfather or Citizen Kane. Because truthfully, there could be (and likely is) someone out there who is insanely smart and thinks everyone else is dumb for liking Citizen Kane.

Sorry if this post comes off as incoherent rambling. I'm having a hard time formulating my thoughts as I just got a few hours of sleep last night and I'm tired as hell but I had to get that out of my system.

[corran horn]

^^ What JCPhoenix said! Love the new forum look, BTW.;)

[abraa cadaver]

I have to ask, when will Americans ever be in the mood for a thought provoking movie?

I'm tired of talking movies with the average Joe after they find out I'm a movie buff. They try to talk about the merits of a movie like Norbit and I find it pretty weak. I don't even want to go into detail why a movie like that is an abomination to cinema. They wouldn't get it. It'd be like explaining to your dog why he has to eat shitty dog food.

I know it's a cliche to say most Americans have no taste or sense of judgment but come on, this is the country that was dumb enough to vote for Bush twice! I know I didn't! It may have been rigged, but there was still enough popular vote for them to fool the public yet again.

I think America's top grossing films and popular music shows what the basic train of thought for the country is: a teenager who acts only on their feelings and not with their head.

Lets not forget people around the world eat Americas entertainment exports up. Where else do you get your films, Bahliwood? The fucking BBC? Please eat a dick. Thats all. Go feast.

[abraa cadaver]

I have a question for the schmoes here. (And to preface, I'm going to be as extremely one-sided in my approach, just to prove a point.)

You have two different people.

One has the following movies listed as his favorites:

+ Date Movie
+ Wild Hogs
+ The Fast and the Furious
+ Waist Deep
+ The Dukes of Hazzard
+ Delta Farce
+ The Number 23


The second has these listed as his favorites:

+ The Godfather
+ Seven Samurai
+ Pulp Fiction
+ Citizen Kane
+ Taxi Driver
+ Fight Club
+ American Beauty


Now, what would you say the likelihood is that the second guy is more intelligent than the first?

...anybody getting my point?

Just because it's not DEFINITE that the people watching these awful movies are dumb, I have learned through experience that people with terrible taste in film are oftentimes also stupid in other regards. I'm not saying it's a fact; I'm merely saying it's a likely possibility that assuredly applies to many individuals in the world.

Agree? Disagree?

Totally agree.

[FrankT.JMackey]

Wild Hogs enjoyable?? You sir are on crack.

[exstinksean]

the fact that stupid movies do so well in this country has nothing to do whatsoever with nationality. it's because, in this country, the majority of the movie going audience are teenagers and teenagers are fucking dumb as shit, so of course, the stupid dumbed down date movie does better.