when people are TOO into movies

[freakandgeek]

i love movies. i love to watch them and just forget about the crap going on. i love to talk about movies. BUT i can't stand the people that get all angry because i don't like this movie or that movie. i mean, can you have a normal discussion about a movie without getting pissed? ITS JUST A MOVIE! and don't call me names becuase i don't like your favorite movie. not everyone has the same opinion.

anyone feel the same?

[Reigh Kaufman]

Yes and no. My all-time pet peeves runs something like this:

Cruelty in any shape or form to children...

Then...

Racism
Sexism
Bigotry
Ignorance

Then...

Stupidity (I really don't suffer fools gladly) and bad movies. That's the order. But, and it's a big but, when I say bad movies I mean...any teen movie that is empty of meaning, any comedy that is stupid and/or gross for nothing other than cheap belly laughs, any 'message' movie that handles the cause with a banner and a sledgehammer, any arthouse that goes beyond literal and into a whole new realm of pretention, and any action movie that has nothing but stunts to present itself...

Therefore when it comes to movies, of which I find American Beauty to be one of the untenable, in terms of story and direction etc, I find myself quite irritated by the fact that people refuse to make an effort to appreciate it...God knows I try to watch the no-brainers myself, but let's not kid each other on - Rush Hour 2 means fuck all to anyone in the cold light of day, whereas, say, Being There or Magnolia or my own favourite movie Waking the Dead has a power to some people that is indefinable. By all means there are a people on this forum I like and can speak to who prefer to watch The Fast And The Furious over Amores Perros-- different strokes for different folks -- but I'll never ever be convinced that these types of films, designed purely to make money and entertain, have a bearing on the world as it stands. As for being into movies too much, well, I don't usually beat people over the head with it -- I asked my mother to watch Dancer In The Dark on monday and she got bored after half an hour so I turned it off -- but I do admit to thinking that she/ they don't try hard enough to appreciate what is being said. Sorry if it sounds a little muddled but I'm writing this sporadically (my boxer puppy keeps nipping my feet)....

[Beeblebrox]

Rush Hour 2 means fuck all to anyone in the cold light of day, whereas, say, Being There or Magnolia or my own favourite movie Waking the Dead has a power to some people that is indefinable.

Um, Magnolia means fuck all to anyone in the cold light of day too. These are movies. All of them. Whether the film touches you or reaches you is in the eye of the beholder. Filmmakers aren't exactly curing cancer. They're trying to entertain.

I find it annoying when people use movies as a measure of intelligence, as if liking those films makes you smarter or deeper. On that, I agree with f&g.

I would add that I also find it annoying when people think that not liking a movie like Reqiem for a Dream means you must prefer movies like XXX.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Um, Magnolia means fuck all to anyone in the cold light of day too. These are movies. All of them. Whether the film touches you or reaches you is in the eye of the beholder. Filmmakers aren't exactly curing cancer. They're trying to entertain.

I would add that I also find it annoying when people think that not liking a movie like Reqiem for a Dream means you must prefer movies like XXX.

As strange as this sounds, movies have had such a huge effect on my life, I would like to think that they are more important than many other forms of entertainment, and admittedly not curing cancer. Throughout my life, various movies have helped me through various problems, not only because they made me forget them for a couple of hours, but because sometimes the characters proved that somewhere...in someones mind...there are people like me. And that I am not such a pariah that I am inconceivable. In this respect, I would like to think that movies are possibly more effective than, say, video games.

As far as not liking one movie meaning that you *must* like another movie, that is also a pet peeve of mine. People assume that you have terrible taste if you don't happen to like one of the films that is supposed to be incredible, or a movie that they personally adore.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Not that it matters much, but I made no reference at all to individuals taste reflecting their IQ. I said they 'prefer' to watch a certain type of movie -- something that is completely understandable to me. As for Magnolia -- or films of that ilk -- meaning fuck all to people in the cold light of day, I would disagree. Sure movies don't really (i.e literally) 'do' anything, but I've yet to hear of someone saying they became a smart-alecky-wise-cracking-jive-talking-copper as a result of watching (insert one of a thousand popcorn movies)... but the boards themselves are filled with people who have been touched/moved/motivated by the more 'serious' (if that's the term I'm forced to use) films....

It's not really an argument I want to get into, because essentially I love all kinds of film and the point is redundant. However to say that all movies are equal is missing the point. Let's just agree that different movies serve a different purpose, and that the different purpose is different for each individual. That sounds pretty fair to me...

[Beeblebrox]

I've yet to hear of someone saying they became a smart-alecky-wise-cracking-jive-talking-copper as a result of watching (insert one of a thousand popcorn movies)... but the boards themselves are filled with people who have been touched/moved/motivated by the more 'serious' (if that's the term I'm forced to use) films....

I would argue that the opposite of what you say is true. Films like Spider-man have a much greater cultural and global impact than a film like like Magnolia, if for no other reason than more people see it. And no other film has had the deeply penetrating influence of Star Wars, a movie that defines the popcorn flick genre.

If you're talking about an individual's reaction to a film, then I can only say that you can't speak for anyone but yourself. I have been far more influenced by popcorn flicks like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, E.T, Star Wars, and the like than the more "serious" fare.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I don't think you read my post. You know, the part where I said individuals taste and reactions to a film is different for every viewer? It basically agrees with the last part of your post. And not to be rude (really, I like discussing these things with people so don't take umbrage), but I think your taking my reference to a particular kind of film as 'popcorn' the wrong way.

Of course Spiderman etc has a global impact...and even on individuals...but the films I am referring to are more personal to a viewer (should they take to them that way) because they essentially move to a deeper part of the human psyche (you can't, in all seriousness ask me to belive that Rush Hour 2 does that). All the films I am referring to and all the films you are referring to are just films. My point is - -and I absolutely refer only to myself -- the more 'serious' of the films have a harder job in being quantified and therefore have to worked harder at understanding. Not to denigrate ET, Star Wars, Raiders (all of which I am a fan of), but the Universal themes -- maybe not Raiders -- are simplistic in terms of philosphies. That in NO WAY makes them less or more culturally valuable - not at all - it just gives tham a different plateau for a viewer to try and reach, and my point was some people are set against trying.

[Beeblebrox]

All the films I am referring to and all the films you are referring to are just films. My point is - -and I absolutely refer only to myself -- the more 'serious' of the films have a harder job in being quantified and therefore have to worked harder at understanding.

I'm not debating your personal experience with films. How can I? But you keep expanding your argument to others by, for example, stating that "some people are dead set against trying" to understand these supposedly deeper and more powerful films.

I'm simply disagreeing that these films are objectively deeper or more powerful. If I don't like Magnolia, it's not because I didn't get it or didn't try to understand it. I could perfectly understand it but still be bored by it. I could totally get the meaning of it and still find it unmoving.

It is not the audiences obligation or responsibility to TRY to understand the meaning of a film. It is the filmmaker's job to convey it, and if most of his audience isn't interested enough in the film to appreciate the deeper meaning, then the filmmaker has failed. In such a case, I would be irritated by the filmmaker and the film, not the audience.

[Reigh Kaufman]

If I expand too much -- and I do admit to talking from personal experience, and once agin refer only to myself -- it's because I've heard thousands of people saying they did not watch a film simply because it didn't mean anything to them. Fair enough. But pressed as to why they did not like a specific film they become vague. Nine times out of ten, however, the movies they have enjoyed they have enjoyed because it had a cool car chase or a cool explosion -- this is what I mean when I say the other type of film has to work harder.

To digress:

I used to work in a video store whilst at University. Every day a person would come in and ask for a recommendation. Naturally, for the first few months I went by my own personal favourites thinking they would apreciate a night in with a good bottle of wine and a well-directed, well-acted film. That changed, more or less, when the customers took to complaining that my taste in films was too weird (I am talking, by the way, about bona fide classics such as The Godfather, not the more obscure films) and I began recommending any old dross that required the least amount of thought or attention. Fine; so people didn't share my taste in films - no biggie. But the realisation is that a quota of people don't watch film to learn anything about life/the world and I find that disheartening - note: I find that disheartening. Another thing is that nine out of ten people refuse to watch anything with subtitles -- and I mean REFUSE to watch anything with subtitles. should I care? Not really. Do I care? Kinda. Because it's this attitude that means that Donnie Darko scrapes £2.5 million here in Britain, whilst Runaway Bride takes the top of the charts and a Box-Office of £18million. Nobody, it seems to me, wants to expand their mind too far.

Perhaps I do take it too personally. Perhaps my frustrations are my own fault. But you must admit that we as a species are becoming intolerably lazy and increasingly narrow-minded. Jesus, I mean, they make sequels everyday for these films and yet nobody will go and watch Bowling For Columbine (less than half a million here - a film that ought to be seen by everyone at some point, largely because it may/will affect most families some time in the future, the way we are going).

Anyway, thanks for the debate. If I don't reply tonight, cheers.

[Beeblebrox]

Perhaps my frustrations are my own fault. But you must admit that we as a species are becoming intolerably lazy and increasingly narrow-minded.

Because we'd rather watch Runaway Bride than Donnie Darko?

You are taking it too seriously to say the least. This is what I'm talking about when I say you're measuring IQ (or willingness to expand one's mind) by one's taste in movies. If you're doing that, then naturally you're going to be frustrated.

I choose to "expand my mind" by reading and studying, not by watching movies. So when it comes to movies, I prefer that a film be entertaining first and foremost. If I get something else out it, then all the better. I think most people are the same as me. They want their entertainment to be entertaining. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Just because I don't go to the movies to expand my mind, doesn't mean that I'm opposed to doing so at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say that expanding your mind with mass entertainment like film (even obscure titles) is like watching The Tonight Show monologue for your news and current events.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
[B}I'm simply disagreeing that these films are objectively deeper or more powerful. If I don't like Magnolia, it's not because I didn't get it or didn't try to understand it. I could perfectly understand it but still be bored by it. I could totally get the meaning of it and still find it unmoving.
[/B]


(Gives big hug) THANK YOU!!!


I try never to be so simple as to just say a movie sucks, or is bad, I try to use bigger words and illustrate why I hate them. Sometimes I can rant sometimes I don't, but I try not publicly insult other people's intelligence to their face for liking a certain film.

I like my popcorn flicks as well as my serious fare. I had a friend who thought Frailty was awful. Instead of chastizing her mercilessly, like others might do, I just shut my mouth and continued on with the evening.

I also loved American Beauty. When I went to see it a second time with some friends who hadn't, the man behind me in the ticket line thought I hadn't seen it yet and commented to me "You haven't seen it yet? Oh man you're in for a real treat!" A complete stranger just said that to me!

People get moved by films, whether they're mainstream or indie. And if they get out of hand while talking about a movie, or disagreeing with your choice of a movie very disrespectfully, its time to tune them out and never discuss a film with them again..... at least not without some ground rules.

[freakandgeek]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beeblebrox


I find it annoying when people use movies as a measure of intelligence, as if liking those films makes you smarter or deeper.



i DEFINATELY agree.....

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Annie Hall
As far as not liking one movie meaning that you *must* like another movie, that is also a pet peeve of mine. People assume that you have terrible taste if you don't happen to like one of the films that is supposed to be incredible, or a movie that they personally adore.


i agree

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox


I'm simply disagreeing that these films are objectively deeper or more powerful. If I don't like Magnolia, it's not because I didn't get it or didn't try to understand it. I could perfectly understand it but still be bored by it. I could totally get the meaning of it and still find it unmoving.



wow, you said it there. i hate it when people say i don't get a movie i don't like...maybe i just don't freakin like it!!

[Reigh Kaufman]

First thing: I really wish you would stop taking things I say outwith it's context to further your argument. It's not necessary and people can read the thread if they want to see the debate. Second thing: I still have yet to see where in the thread I have implied that people did not get a film simply because they did not like it. That is rude, I agree. I simply said that 'some' people - not you, not other people on this forum - but some people would rather not at least try to watch a certain type of movie because it would be too involving. Third thing: whether or not it has come across yet, I think the point I am trying to make is pretty simple - it's a shame that these people won't make the effort to watch, say, Donnie Darko, but will gladly sit in a theatre and waste £5 on something as asinine as Runaway Bride. Now note the imprtant thing I just said - it's a 'shame' they won't make an effort. No malice, no inference that their IQ is low, just a wish that they would at least try to appreciate films that do more than just blankly entertain. I agree that the use of 'waste £5' and 'asinine' implies a stronger viewpoint. But then, we all have a barrage of films we don't like and these just happen to be mine.

I don't pretend to be smarter or deeper than anyone. I also read etc to expand my own mind (it's pretty well-documented on the forums that I was a Psychology/English Lit. student before I changed my degree to Film). But I think it's a bit of a liberty to say that I'm taking this too seriously when in actual fact I have already stated I enjoy most kinds of movies, 'popcorn' or otherwise, and yet my comments are being twisted into something more sinister. I watch all kinds of movies - some for entertainment, some for edification, some for education and some for confirmation. I merely said that a quota of people refuse to watch anything other than entertainment - and I think they are missing out on a lot. That's up to them. I won't ever force people to watch something else if they are resistant. But the more it continues the less choice I am having in my own viewing - the common denominator prevailing, as it is, over everyone else. So do I take it too seriously? Yes and no.

[The Postmaster General]

Whoa.

I hear what you are saying Reigh, and you're not calling anyone stupid for not liking Magnolia (as it has been implied that you have...)


I like all kinds of movies. Dude, Where's My Car, Pootie Tang, Magnolia, The Last Dragon, 2001, Waterboy, La Haine, Virgin Suicides...


My point is that sometimes I don't feel like something that is deep. Sometimes I do.

Now, I know that there are people who never feel like watching something deep.

There are also people who always feel like watching somethign deep.

Reigh wishes people would try both deep, and not deep movies.




And people need to grow up and stop equating "Not getting" a movie to being someone who is "too stupid to get" the movie.

Just because someone says you "don't get" something doesn't mean they are insulting your intellegence.


Hell, I "didn't get" the Rocky Horror Picture Show. That doesn't mean I didn't understand it -- I just didn't get what was so great about it.

Pretty simple. I'm mature enough to accept that I didn't get it.



Hell, Reigh didn't like Rush Hour 2 and that made over 100 million dollars. So obviously there is something about that movie that Reigh didn't get that other people did get. No big deal! Right?

The miscommunication comes in that people who like deeper movies usually recognize that people "don't get" it. But when people like popcorn movies, they usually don't admit the nay-sayer "didn't get it" - instead they just bubble on with stuff like, "Ah man, how could you not like that..." and so on.

So I think this will all be solved when people admit that Spiderman can be just as easily not gotten as Magnolia.

"Frogs? I don't get it."

"A man in a spider suit? I don't get it."

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Whoa.

I hear what you are saying Reigh, and you're not calling anyone stupid for not liking Magnolia (as it has been implied that you have...)


I like all kinds of movies. Dude, Where's My Car, Pootie Tang, Magnolia, The Last Dragon, 2001, Waterboy, La Haine, Virgin Suicides...


My point is that sometimes I don't feel like something that is deep. Sometimes I do.

Now, I know that there are people who never feel like watching something deep.

There are also people who always feel like watching somethign deep.

Reigh wishes people would try both deep, and not deep movies.




And people need to grow up and stop equating "Not getting" a movie to being someone who is "too stupid to get" the movie.

Just because someone says you "don't get" something doesn't mean they are insulting your intellegence.


Hell, I "didn't get" the Rocky Horror Picture Show. That doesn't mean I didn't understand it -- I just didn't get what was so great about it.

Pretty simple. I'm mature enough to accept that I didn't get it.



Hell, Reigh didn't like Rush Hour 2 and that made over 100 million dollars. So obviously there is something about that movie that Reigh didn't get that other people did get. No big deal! Right?

The miscommunication comes in that people who like deeper movies usually recognize that people "don't get" it. But when people like popcorn movies, they usually don't admit the nay-sayer "didn't get it" - instead they just bubble on with stuff like, "Ah man, how could you not like that..." and so on.

So I think this will all be solved when people admit that Spiderman can be just as easily not gotten as Magnolia.

"Frogs? I don't get it."

"A man in a spider suit? I don't get it."

when someone says to me "you must not have gotten it" is different then me saying i didn't get it. to me, its their way of saying a movie is too smart for me....you know what i mean? its like, if you insult a family member, its ok because they are part of your family, but if someone else insults them, then its not ok because they are not part of the family. you see what i mean? i just hate it when people say that to me because it sounds so smug. maybe its just the people that have said it to me, maybe not everyone who says that is like that. but the people who have said it ARE like that and it PISSES me off!

[The Postmaster General]

Well, if they "are just" movies, then why get so mad?



People being cocky is the problem here.



And popcorn movie fans can be just as cocky.



So many people asked others "How can you not like Lord of the Rings?"

That statement is no more cocky than saying "You don't get it."

Then when someone says, "Well, I just didn't like Lord of the Rings."

I also hear, "Well, you just must not be a fan of the books."

I always think, "Why do you care why they didn't like it?"

I wouldn't take all of this so personally people. When someone likes a movie, they try to FIND a reason why someone else wouldn't like it. That's a way of justifying your love of the movie to yourself. Many insults have been taken because of this.

When an avid Magnolia fan tells you that you "didn't get it" -- do you seriously think they are doing it as a roundabout way of calling you stupid, or are they doing it because they are justifying a movie that they like? How much do you really think it has to do with you?

when someone says to me "you must not have gotten it" is different then me saying i didn't get it. to me, its their way of saying a movie is too smart for me....you know what i mean?

No, I don't get it. The only insult is see is that they pointed out the obvious. If you didn't get the movie, what's so bad about someone pointing that out as why you may not of liked it? You're allowed to say you didn't get the movie, but other people can't? That seems dishonest.

Why don't you guys flat out ask, "Are you saying the movie is too smart for me?"

You might be surprised to find out that this wasn't what was intended.

Anger is a result of lack of communication. If you guys are getting so angry, maybe there is something you're not understanding. (lol)

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Well, if they "are just" movies, then why get so mad?



People being cocky is the problem here.



And popcorn movie fans can be just as cocky.



So many people asked others "How can you not like Lord of the Rings?"

That statement is no more cocky than saying "You don't get it."

Then when someone says, "Well, I just didn't like Lord of the Rings."

I also hear, "Well, you just must not be a fan of the books."

I always think, "Why do you care why they didn't like it?"

I wouldn't take all of this so personally people. When someone likes a movie, they try to FIND a reason why someone else wouldn't like it. That's a way of justifying your love of the movie to yourself. Many insults have been taken because of this.

When an avid Magnolia fan tells you that you "didn't get it" -- do you seriously think they are doing it as a roundabout way of calling you stupid, or are they doing it because they are justifying a movie that they like? How much do you really think it has to do with you?

when someone says to me "you must not have gotten it" is different then me saying i didn't get it. to me, its their way of saying a movie is too smart for me....you know what i mean?

No, I don't get it. The only insult is see is that they pointed out the obvious. If you didn't get the movie, what's so bad about someone pointing that out as why you may not of liked it? You're allowed to say you didn't get the movie, but other people can't? That seems dishonest.

Why don't you guys flat out ask, "Are you saying the movie is too smart for me?"

You might be surprised to find out that this wasn't what was intended.

Anger is a result of lack of communication. If you guys are getting so angry, maybe there is something you're not understanding. (lol)

I don't get it.http://www.plauder-smilies.de/sad/nixweiss.gif

[The Postmaster General]

lol - and i feel none the less towards you.,

[Beeblebrox]

It's a SHAME that some people don't realize that movies are entertainment, period.

If a movie does nothing but entertain, then it has fulfilled its function. If it does more, like answer the questions of the universe, then all the better. If it only does anything else, but does not entertain, then it has failed.

A film is a work of craft the way a chair is a work of craft. A chair is first and foremost for sitting. It it does only that, then it has done its job. If can also be a work of art, great. But if you can't sit in it, then it fails as a chair.

Film is a unique artform in that it is inherently collaborative and has always been a commercial medium. That makes it no less art, but it is not art in the sense that it should be appreciated for art's sake. It's more like TV. In fact, it actually served the same function as TV before TV was invented.

So should a person subject themselves, as you think they should, to a film they feel that they won't find enjoy? Of course not. It's not a SHAME when they don't do it, no more than it's a shame when you don't do it.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
lol - and i feel none the less towards you.,

Is it possible to feel any less towards me? If so, I haven't done my job.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox

So should a person subject themselves, as you think they should

Who me?

I never said that. All I said was mearly that I understand Reigh's complaint. That doesn't mean I don't understand yours.

All I am saying is stop taking everything as a personal insult.

To use chairs as an example.

I am at an exhibition for the designs of Eero Aarnio (http://www.eero-aarnio.com/images/tomato_gross.jpg) - the designer of the bubble chairs (those ones that look like, well bubbles.

You are at the exhibition too.

After the exhibition, you tell me, "Man, those chairs sucked the big one!"

I say, "You didn't even take time to look at the chairs. All you did was sit in them."

You say, "But what's the point of a chair if you can't sit in it?"

I say, "Well I went to look at the chairs. If I wanted to sit down, I would have stayed at home. I admire what Eero does."

You say, "I don't."

I say, "Well, you don't get it."

You say, "You don't either."


What's so bad about that?

[Jason Voorhees]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Well, if they "are just" movies, then why get so mad?



People being cocky is the problem here.

I agree.



And popcorn movie fans can be just as cocky.

I agree.



So many people asked others "How can you not like Lord of the Rings?"

That statement is no more cocky than saying "You don't get it."

Then when someone says, "Well, I just didn't like Lord of the Rings."

I also hear, "Well, you just must not be a fan of the books."

I always think, "Why do you care why they didn't like it?"

I completely agree.

I wouldn't take all of this so personally people. When someone likes a movie, they try to FIND a reason why someone else wouldn't like it. That's a way of justifying your love of the movie to yourself. Many insults have been taken because of this.

I don't understand this. I've never looked for a reason why people wouldn't like any film; for me the reason is readily apparent: not everybody likes the same shit :). Especially when your taste in film is as bad as mine is.


When an avid Magnolia fan tells you that you "didn't get it" -- do you seriously think they are doing it as a roundabout way of calling you stupid, or are they doing it because they are justifying a movie that they like? How much do you really think it has to do with you?

Isn't the inference the same regardless? It still sounds condescending either way.

when someone says to me "you must not have gotten it" is different then me saying i didn't get it. to me, its their way of saying a movie is too smart for me....you know what i mean?

No, I don't get it. The only insult is see is that they pointed out the obvious. If you didn't get the movie, what's so bad about someone pointing that out as why you may not of liked it? You're allowed to say you didn't get the movie, but other people can't? That seems dishonest.

Maybe I'm stuffy. but isn't pointing out something so obvious an insult to the intelligence? If I say Magnolia sucked (Which I've never seen, for the record) and someone says ''You didn't get it'', then they're pointing out that we have a conflict of opinion. Which I already knew. At best, they're pointing out that the film has something for them, and not for me. Which I already knew. Why would you use a phrase like '' you don't get it'' if the inference wasn't that you're somehow superior? The phrase inherently implies presumed superiorty/infeirority. At the very least it implies ignorance on someone's part. There are plenty of better ways to voice disagreements about why you liked/disliked a film. And why someone else may have liked/disliked a film.

Why don't you guys flat out ask, "Are you saying the movie is too smart for me?"

Maybe I should start asking that :D.

You might be surprised to find out that this wasn't what was intended.

That's a possibility. But if the person's initial intent was to insult you in a roundabout way, why would they flat out tell you if you asked? Or wouldn't they lie about their intent?

Anger is a result of lack of communication. If you guys are getting so angry, maybe there is something you're not understanding.

Very often, that is most likely the case; some people, however, are just real assholes. I still think the phrase carries an air of condescension.

If a popcorn move fan said that I don't get Rush Hour 2, I consider that an insult to my intelligence. Of course I ''got it''; and I say that meaning I know why most people liked it: because it was big, loud, fun, and it had Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker in it. What's not to ''get''? Saying I wouldn't ''get'' a film like this is certainly an insult to the intelligence.

I think we just have a simple disagreement, Bubba. I respect your points. I think they carry a lot of common sense and intelligence. I'm just not entirely convinced that the ''Get it'' phrase has any constructional value whatsoever; it seems more like something you use when you want to tear other people down. Rather than build a construtive discussion/debate.

[freakandgeek]

blah blah blah

[Beeblebrox]

Actually, BS, I wasn't addressing your post.
When I said this:

So should a person subject themselves, as you think they should

it was in response to RK's feeling of shame that people don't.

That's all.

As for this:

After the exhibition, you tell me, "Man, those chairs sucked the big one!"

I would never say that about a chair. Besides, you CAN sit in his chairs, which makes them both form and function.

And even if I did say it sucked, not liking it is a far cry from saying you should be ashamed because you didn't even bother trying to like it. When people wag their finger at me, I usually try to bite it off.

[The Postmaster General]

The funny part about this, is I think I've seldom, if ever, told someone they "didn't get it".

haha


well, i think these points are all small, and I think we do agree on is that movies are not IQ tests. No one has ever gotten into college, got a job, or whatever, because they got a movie someone else didn't. Movies are not a viable form of assessing intellegence. That's why it wouldn't bother me if someone told me I didn't get a movie.

[Jason Voorhees]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
blah blah blah

I'm left to assume that you're against people discussing, on a message board a topic that you started?


Hmm...

[Jason Voorhees]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
The funny part about this, is I think I've seldom, if ever, told someone they "didn't get it".

haha

Same here. As I stated earlier: not everyone likes the same films And, as I argued earlier, I find it a useless phrase for constructive discussion.


well, i think these points are all small, and I think we do agree on is that movies are not IQ tests.

Absolutely.


No one has ever gotten into college, got a job, or whatever, because they got a movie someone else didn't.

True.

Movies are not a viable form of assessing intellegence. That's why it wouldn't bother me if someone told me I didn't get a movie.

I agree. But some people are assholes, as I said, and will use any platform they can to raise themselves above others. Thankfully, the majority of people are better than that.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Jason Voorhees
Thankfully, the majority of people are better than that.


You're more optimistic than I am. :D

[Jason Voorhees]

lol. Well, I tend to think the majority of people are average; it's a nice bell curve. So I hope the average person doesn't act like that... :). If not.. then ugh.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Wait, hold up, can we go back a bit? Where in this thread have I said pople should be 'ashamed' for not trying to watch these kinds of movies?

I swear that my posts are deliberately being twisted so that you can prove a point that a)I have agreed with anyway and b)has already been clarified. If you can't understand that I simply think viewing is becoming limited due to a mass medium being diluted by the studios, fine. But don't start saying I said 'this' when I said 'that'. That's four times it's been done and it's spoiling my enjoyment of an otherwise healthy debate. Ask around, you'll find that in nearly 900 posts I have yet to call anyone out over their personal taste in films (except one Schmoe who joined for a night just to hurl insults). Maybe it's not me taking film too seriously after all...I mean, I at least concede points well made, no?

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
It's a SHAME that some people don't realize that movies are entertainment, period.

If a movie does nothing but entertain, then it has fulfilled its function. If it does more, like answer the questions of the universe, then all the better. If it only does anything else, but does not entertain, then it has failed.

A film is a work of craft the way a chair is a work of craft. A chair is first and foremost for sitting. It it does only that, then it has done its job. If can also be a work of art, great. But if you can't sit in it, then it fails as a chair.

Film is a unique artform in that it is inherently collaborative and has always been a commercial medium. That makes it no less art, but it is not art in the sense that it should be appreciated for art's sake. It's more like TV. In fact, it actually served the same function as TV before TV was invented.

So should a person subject themselves, as you think they should, to a film they feel that they won't find enjoy? Of course not. It's not a SHAME when they don't do it, no more than it's a shame when you don't do it.

I'm not arguing about your chair scenario, but, I believe that movies are not, as you have stated many times, simply a form of entertainment to some people. Sure, for some people they are a nice way to spend two hours, but, for many, myself included, they are more than that. Having studied film extensively, I believe that, like any art, it can be appreciated more deeply by those who really love it.

You can take five people to an art museum...four of which enjoy art, but don't love it...who is really going to see a lot of symbolism, and truly think about the emotion and technique behind the painting? The one who loves and lives for painting, of course. Does this mean that the four others are more stupid than the one person? Of course not. It simply means that the person cares more about the technique, about the details as opposed to the "pretty painting".

One cannot really say that one art form is higher than another, but, I firmly believe that more thought, more effort and more time is spent on movies. Sure, they are pumped out just like TV shows...but...unlike movies, TV shows are stopped if they unpopular. No matter how intelligent. Movies, such as Ghost World or Donnie Darko are allowed to grow, and be enjoyed by people in ten years. While the rare 1 season long show becomes a cult classic...many are lost forever.

Looking back, many of my points seem incomplete. But, basically, I am saying that movies are very complex...and...sometimes, not always, but sometimes...there is not an overwhelming sense of "fun" in a movie. But...if you are moved or it has an impact, than it has served just as important a service as if it was an entertaining two hours.

[Beeblebrox]

Having studied film extensively, I believe that, like any art, it can be appreciated more deeply by those who really love it.

I never said that films couldn't or shouldn't be appreciated as art. And they certainly mean more to some to people than others, no question.

In keeping with the analogy, however, chairs might mean more to some people than others too. It's still a chair, and it's first and foremost function is still for sitting.

Some people really appreciate the art of creating a chair. Others just sit without giving it a second thought. Some of those who create chairs put great care and thought into making a unique work of art. Others just stick wooden legs on a wooden base. It's still a chair and it's still first and foremost for sitting.

What you get out of a movie is up to you. But films, all films, are first and foremost entertainment. Some of them are more. Some are less. Some rise to true greatness and penetrate the culture, changing it irrevocably. But they are all still made for entertaining, and a film that doesn't do that is a failure.

BTW, calling a film entertaining should be taken negatively or lightly. As one who makes films for a living, it is something I take very seriously. Entertaining an audience full of people is much more difficult a task than many think.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
What you get out of a movie is up to you. But films, all films, are first and foremost entertainment. Some of them are more. Some are less. Some rise to true greatness and penetrate the culture, changing it irrevocably. But they are all still made for entertaining, and a film that doesn't do that is a failure.

Although, in most cases this is true...would you say that Requiem for a Dream is "entertainment"? Probably not at all. But it is considered to be one of the most disturbing and thought-provoking films of recent years. Not to say that in some forms this movie is enjoyable (falling into your "less" category), but, overall, it cannot be said that every movie must be entertaining, to be worth watching.

(Forrest Gump) And that...is all I have to say about thay-at.

[Beeblebrox]

Although, in most cases this is true...would you say that Requiem for a Dream is "entertainment"?

Was Requiem for a Dream made to entertain? Absolutely. Was it meant to entertain EVERYONE? No. It is not broad, as they say, meaning that the themes in the film target a much narrower audience. That's why films like this get such small budgets and why filmmakers with small budgets tend to go for this type of material.

Did it accomplish its goal? Well, yes and no.

Obviously, it did for you. Something about this film provoked your thoughts. Something about this film disturbed you. Yes, you were entertained by it. That doesn't mean it was a happy experience. People find getting the bejeezus scared out of them on rollercoasters entertaining too. To each his own.

However, in this case you must count yourself in the vast minority. Requiem cost $4.5 million to make and grossed about $3.6 million. While it was critically acclaimed, critics don't buy tickets.

While it wasn't meant for everyone, it was certainly meant for SOMEONE. By that measure, it failed to reach as large an audience as was intended, although I think it was mostly on target on whom he intended it for. I think Aranofsky (and his investors) simply overestimated the number of people who would be entertained by a film like this.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox

I think Aranofsky (and his investors) simply overestimated the number of people who would be entertained by a film like this.


Not so much over estimated , more like shot themselves in the foot by releasing it unrated and therefore not getting it into enough theatres to make back their money.

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Jason Voorhees
I'm left to assume that you're against people discussing, on a message board a topic that you started?


Hmm...

thats not what i meant. sorry if you thought that......i KNOW i started this topic because i am interested in what people have to say about it. but some people (i am not necessarily talking about anyone specific) seem to just say the same thing over and over and over...and thats why i said blah blah blah.....sorry if you thought otherwise.....you're views and idea mean something to me....i like to hear other people's opinions, even when they are not like my own.....sorry:(

[Jason Voorhees]

No need to feel sorry. I was just asking for clarification. I understand that some of the posts were quite lengthy, but sometimes a point-by-point rebuttal is necessary.

I just found it kind of odd because you and I were arguing the same point.

No worries,

Jason.

[Irene Manor]

The movie that I found it most hard to get was "THE PEST"

That movie went waaayyyyy over my head man, because I couldn't figure out how it was a comedy. I could watch La Haine without subtitles and understand what was going on easier than I could with that flick.

whew!

[Madeline]

On the topic of people bashing other people because of their taste in movies... it's a stupid thing to enforce your own likes on other people but it's understandable. I mean, personally, I think the types of movies you like says something about your personality. You have to like a certain movie because it fits with a person like you right? :confused: If you like xXx or American Pie or something I'll think a certain thing about you regardless. But I would think that of you if you did anything else in a certain way anyway so what I suppose I am saying is a person's taste in movies tells a lot a person but everyone's different. Eck. End Transmission

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Jason Voorhees
No need to feel sorry. I was just asking for clarification. I understand that some of the posts were quite lengthy, but sometimes a point-by-point rebuttal is necessary.

I just found it kind of odd because you and I were arguing the same point.

No worries,

Jason.

:) :cool:

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Madeline
On the topic of people bashing other people because of their taste in movies... it's a stupid thing to enforce your own likes on other people but it's understandable. I mean, personally, I think the types of movies you like says something about your personality. You have to like a certain movie because it fits with a person like you right? :confused: If you like xXx or American Pie or something I'll think a certain thing about you regardless. But I would think that of you if you did anything else in a certain way anyway so what I suppose I am saying is a person's taste in movies tells a lot a person but everyone's different. Eck. End Transmission

ok, so what do you think of someone who likes american pie but hates xxx?

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
ok, so what do you think of someone who likes american pie but hates xxx?

That's the problem with categorizing people by the movies they like. Or lumping the "mass audience" into one big mass.

I liked XXX. I liked One Hour Photo. I liked Lost in Paradise. I liked Un Chien Andelou. I liked Spider-man.

I did not like Requiem for a Dream. I did not like American Beauty. I did not like Magnolia, but I loved Boogie Nights.

And what can anyone discern about my tastes, my education, my intelligence from any of this? Absolutely nothing. And no one in the audiences that sat with me through any of these movies would agree with everyone of these films so there's really nothing to gather from them either.

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
That's the problem with categorizing people by the movies they like. Or lumping the "mass audience" into one big mass.

I liked XXX. I liked One Hour Photo. I liked Lost in Paradise. I liked Un Chien Andelou. I liked Spider-man.

I did not like Requiem for a Dream. I did not like American Beauty. I did not like Magnolia, but I loved Boogie Nights.

And what can anyone discern about my tastes, my education, my intelligence from any of this? Absolutely nothing. And no one in the audiences that sat with me through any of these movies would agree with everyone of these films so there's really nothing to gather from them either.

you DO realize i was arguing that point, right? you responded to what i said...it sounded to me as though you thought i was the one that was saying you can tell a lot about a person by what movies they like, and i was disagreeing. i mean, i hated american beauty, but loved magnolia. i liked bubble boy, but reservoir dogs is my favorite movie. i like jeepers creepers, but hated fear dot com. so....i think its lame to think you can tell what a person is like by a movie or two that they like....thats weird. thats why i was asking madeline what they thought of people who liked american pie but hated xxx....you see?

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
you DO realize i was arguing that point, right? you responded to what i said...it sounded to me as though you thought i was the one that was saying you can tell a lot about a person by what movies they like, and i was disagreeing. i mean, i hated american beauty, but loved magnolia. i liked bubble boy, but reservoir dogs is my favorite movie. i like jeepers creepers, but hated fear dot com. so....i think its lame to think you can tell what a person is like by a movie or two that they like....thats weird. thats why i was asking madeline what they thought of people who liked american pie but hated xxx....you see?

Yes, I was agreeing with you and providing examples of why you were RIGHT. ;)

[The Postmaster General]

I think you could tag someones personality type by the movies they love, but not their intellegence.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think you could tag someones personality type by the movies they love, but not their intellegence.

Yes, most certainly. Sometimes very stupid, Tom Green-esque movies (made with that intention) strike brilliant people as funny. But, if you find out what someones favorite movies are, if they are all fairly similar...their personalities almost always become clear.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think you could tag someones personality type by the movies they love, but not their intellegence.

Sorry, but I think that's preposterous.

I think you could so far as to say what kind of movies they like GENERALLY and whether or not they'll like a particular movie, but that's about it.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Sorry, but I think that's preposterous.

I think you could so far as to say what kind of movies they like GENERALLY and whether or not they'll like a particular movie, but that's about it.

Yes and no. Although I make no claim that if someone likes certain movies that I can go into a deep analysis of their deepest heart and soul, there are certain aspects about someones personality that can be discerned from what movies they like. For example, one of my relatives loves Pretty Woman, Runaway Bride...etc. and does not like American Beauty or other "depressing" movies. From this, I can discern (even though I knew this already) that she is a generally happy person and probably a romantic of heart. My point, is that often people who enjoy most "feel good" movies...are types who like to feel good about themselves and the world.

...now, if they're like me, and have a generally dark outlook on the world, than movies such as American Beauty or The Usual Suspects would not tend to bother them.

I'm not talking psychoanalysis through movies...just, simple differences.

[Beeblebrox]

From this, I can discern (even though I knew this already) that she is a generally happy person and probably a romantic of heart.

Discerning the personality of someone you already know hardly demonstrates the ability to peg someone's personality based solely on the movies they like.

Yes, I think you could reasonably guess from your relative's choices that she probably would like other romantic comedies. But further than that, what could you really say?

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Discerning the personality of someone you already know hardly demonstrates the ability to peg someone's personality based solely on the movies they like.

Yes, I think you could reasonably guess from your relative's choices that she probably would like other romantic comedies. But further than that, what could you really say?

I meant that although I already knew the woman, the following is what I would have discerned *anyway*. My personal belief (although I in no way believe that everyone has to agree) is that peoples tastes in movies as a whole greatly reflect their personality, not only what other movies they will like. For example, someone who strictly likes "action flicks" and dislikes other movies, is probably a less introverted person, and in all likelyhood into sports as opposed to poetry...etc. Admittedly, these are generalizations, but often true.

The enjoyment of movies is sparked by something within the person that causes them to relate to or connect with the story, which can often be found in their personality. Admittedly some people have a so-called "dark side" or "light-side" that may not be revealed in their tastes. But, their general personality is often very similar to their tastes in movies.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I think the important thing to remember is the use of the word 'generally'. It's not tight and fast - nobody is saying that - but 'generally' a disposition toward a ceratain kind of movie (not genre) made allow a certain insight to a personality. I mean, nothing is set in stone -- the results of a standard Tree, House, Person test are often ineffective (or Joshua's Window for any psychologists out there wishing for a more sophisticated test). But 'generally' you do get a glimpse of a person...

My top ten movies, for example, has a curve-ball:

Waking The Dead
The Virgin Suicides
American Beauty
Magnolia
Boy's Don't Cry
The Goonies
Requiem For A Dream
Donnie Darko
Being There
Se7en

If you look at the list, it's apparent that I'm quite serious (which I CAN be), and bound to moments of introspection. Why, then, is The Goonies in there? Who know? Generally, though, it's a pretty good scale...Or as good as anything else.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
I think the important thing to remember is the use of the word 'generally'. It's not tight and fast - nobody is saying that - but 'generally' a disposition toward a ceratain kind of movie (not genre) made allow a certain insight to a personality. I mean, nothing is set in stone -- the results of a standard Tree, House, Person test are often ineffective (or Joshua's Window for any psychologists out there wishing for a more sophisticated test). But 'generally' you do get a glimpse of a person...

My top ten movies, for example, has a curve-ball:

Waking The Dead
The Virgin Suicides
American Beauty
Magnolia
Boy's Don't Cry
The Goonies
Requiem For A Dream
Donnie Darko
Being There
Se7en

If you look at the list, it's apparent that I'm quite serious (which I CAN be), and bound to moments of introspection. Why, then, is The Goonies in there? Who know? Generally, though, it's a pretty good scale...Or as good as anything else.

Exactly. It is impossible to say that because you like Goonies you will like...or you are like...etc. (Goonies is, by the way, an excellent movie...where *did* all of the good kids movies go?)

[Beeblebrox]

For example, someone who strictly likes "action flicks" and dislikes other movies, is probably a less introverted person, and in all likelyhood into sports as opposed to poetry...etc. Admittedly, these are generalizations, but often true.

Strictly speaking, your "for example" really isn't an example. It's not even a generalization because there is no evidence one way or the other that substantiates such a trend.

For every person you find that fits that generalization (I personally don't know anyone who strictly likes any particular genre), I could find you another that doesn't. Not only is it not "often true," it's so vague that it's meaningless.

Frankly, I don't know anyone whose taste and personality are so simplistic or predictable.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Strictly speaking, your "for example" really isn't an example. It's not even a generalization because there is no evidence one way or the other that substantiates such a trend.

For every person you find that fits that generalization (I personally don't know anyone who strictly likes any particular genre), I could find you another that doesn't. Not only is it not "often true," it's so vague that it's meaningless.

Frankly, I don't know anyone whose taste and personality are so simplistic or predictable.

As I said, it was a generalization...and I do, in fact, know people that are this closed minded about movies. I am not saying that all of these people that say they do not like any other kinds of movies cannot be "turned around" or are not the exact opposite of what one would think, but it is *often true that peoples tastes in movies reflect their personalities in one way or another.*

I by no means meant (if you refer to my earlier post) that I can see into the soul of the guy next to me by finding out his tastes in movies...I simply mean that you can make some basic generalizations if you find out some of people's favorite movies. But, as Reigh said, 'generally' you can get a glimpse of their personalities.

[Beeblebrox]

But, as Reigh said, 'generally' you can get a glimpse of their personalities.

Let me put this in terms other than movies.

This would be roughly akin to my saying that people who drive SUV's are compensating for inadequate manhood, GENERALLY.

My adding the "generally" there makes that statement no less ridiculous, because the statement itself is not accurate in any sense, even generally. Whether or not SOME SUV drivers are, in fact, overcompensating for inadequate manhood does nothing to raise my claim to the level of a general truth.

And if I truly believed it, even in a general sense, there is no doubt that my personal observations would filter out all examples in which this is not the case, leaving me with the erroneous belief that reality backs me up. And if you don't think you do this, you're wrong. EVERYONE does this.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Let me put this in terms other than movies.

This would be roughly akin to my saying that people who drive SUV's are compensating for inadequate manhood, GENERALLY.

My adding the "generally" there makes that statement no less ridiculous, because the statement itself is not accurate in any sense, even generally. Whether or not SOME SUV drivers are, in fact, overcompensating for inadequate manhood does nothing to raise my claim to the level of a general truth.

And if I truly believed it, even in a general sense, there is no doubt that my personal observations would filter out all examples in which this is not the case, leaving me with the erroneous belief that reality backs me up. And if you don't think you do this, you're wrong. EVERYONE does this.

I do not think that the two mediums are similar enough to be able to compare peoples responses to them in this way, since movies are an expression of emotion and cars are vehicles.

I understand what you are saying, but I happen to think that taste movies sometimes reflects *some* aspects of their personalities. Perhaps my previous examples did not convey what I meant for them to. What I think, is that someone's taste in movies OVERALL, often reflects aspects of their personalities.

(Forrest Gump voice) and that is all I have to say about that.

[Beeblebrox]

I do not think that the two mediums are similar enough to be able to compare peoples responses to them in this way, since movies are an expression of emotion and cars are vehicles.

Cars are at least an important reflection of personality as movies. It is not simply a vehicle any more than a movie is simply colored lights on a big screen.

If you can make the leaps you're making with movies, then surely you can recognize that a person who drives a Taurus is going have a different personality than someone who drives a Ferrari.

Does that mean, however, that you can discern the personality of someone who drives a Ferrari based on their car? No. A person who drives a Ferarri might like fast cars, or he might simply like expensive cars. Two totally different personality types and neither one discerned JUST from knowing the car without knowing the driver first.

What I think, is that someone's taste in movies OVERALL, often reflects aspects of their personalities.

That is not the same, as was the original claim, that you could "TAG someones personality type by the movies they love."

To which you responded, "yes, most certainly."

Now you're making your statement so general and vague that it has lost all relevence to the original statement. Yes, a person's taste in movies overall, often reflects aspects of their personalities.

Yeah, like what kind of movies they like. That is an aspect of their personality.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Cars are at least an important reflection of personality as movies. It is not simply a vehicle any more than a movie is simply colored lights on a big screen.

If you can make the leaps you're making with movies, then surely you can recognize that a person who drives a Taurus is going have a different personality than someone who drives a Ferrari.

Does that mean, however, that you can discern the personality of someone who drives a Ferrari based on their car? No. A person who drives a Ferarri might like fast cars, or he might simply like expensive cars. Two totally different personality types and neither one discerned JUST from knowing the car without knowing the driver first.


That is not the same, as was the original claim, that you could "TAG someones personality type by the movies they love."

To which you responded, "yes, most certainly."

Now you're making your statement so general and vague that it has lost all relevence to the original statement. Yes, a person's taste in movies overall, often reflects aspects of their personalities.

Yeah, like what kind of movies they like. That is an aspect of their personality.

Firstly, I think it is impossible to 'TAG' any personality by any means of doing it, but I agreed with the gist of the post. I believe that by finding someones tastes in movies, you learn about their personality. That's it.

As I have said again and again, I do not mean that I know *everything* about these people...I'm simply saying that movies reflect the personalities of the people that enjoy them. I am not saying that someone whose favorite movies tend to be 80s teen flicks is an overly romantic teenager chick who loves Patrick Swayze, eats chocolate only once a week and in the deepest depths of her soul wants to play basketball. I'm saying that you learn a great deal about someone from their tastes.

And, continuing your car analogy, cars can be a way of discerning personality if so inclined, but the apperance of a car is far different from the content of a movie (in my eyes).

I'll finish by saying that it is not just in movies that I find this to be true, music, clothes, cars, books, houses...etc. collectively, you can see more of an entire personality, but, when examining movies, you learn about peoples personalities through their tastes.

[Beeblebrox]

Firstly, I think it is impossible to 'TAG' any personality by any means of doing it, but I agreed with the gist of the post.

The "gist" of the post was that you COULD tag a personality by their taste in movies.

Am I to understand that we both agree that that is impossible, and therefore the idea is preposterous?

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
[quote]Firstly, I think it is impossible to 'TAG' any personality by any means of doing it, but I agreed with the gist of the post. [quote]

The "gist" of the post was that you COULD tag a personality by their taste in movies.

Am I to understand that we both agree that that is impossible, and therefore the idea is preposterous?

I found the gist to be that you can find out about someones personality from movies. Yes, we both agree that it is impossible to find a total synposis of anyones personality...and therefore the idea of knowing everything about someone's personality from their tastes is, indeed, impossible as well.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Annie Hall
Yes, we both agree that it is impossible to find a total synposis of anyones personality...and therefore the idea of knowing everything about someone's personality from their tastes is, indeed, impossible as well.

Close enough. Hugs and kisses. ;)

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Yes, I was agreeing with you and providing examples of why you were RIGHT. ;)
ok, i just wanted to make sure....

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, but there was this guy on the news who could tell you who drove what car.

The guy was standing in the parking lot with the camera crew, and he would go, "Ah, that guy is going to get into that Mazda truck - then the guy would get into the Mazda truck."

How did he get so good at that?


Anyway - Yeah, certain people like certain types of movies. You can relate a personality to that persons choices. That's like the first rule of marketing, and an entire industry can't make billions based on a preposterous concept.

Why the hell do they market movies to different markets to begin with?


And Goonies can be a pretty serious movie. By chance do you come from a single-parent house. I dunno, I said a personality can be tagged by movies, but never said I was any good at it.

[Reigh Kaufman]

You're absolutely right Bubba!!!!!

You aren't any good at it - heh-heh!

My mum and dad are still happily married and live together near my apartment. Pretty happy childhood but I started to drift into artsy-fartsy stuff from an early age. Dad is a retired paramedic, mum is a social work manager. Dad has an interest in Buddhism and martial arts, mum likes musicals. I like neither. They don't like my stuff. Good effort though, mate.

Reigh

[Beeblebrox]

Anyway - Yeah, certain people like certain types of movies. You can relate a personality to that persons choices. That's like the first rule of marketing, and an entire industry can't make billions based on a preposterous concept.

First of all, making and marketing a film is an inexact science to say the LEAST. Most films lose money. Yeah, these guys really have it nailed down. The odds of making and marketing a film are no better than throwing darts at a dart board, but they do it because you can't tell stockholders you're throwing darts at a dart board.

That said, the marketing demographics used by studio ad departments are very broad. 18-24 year old males. 18-34 year old females. Women. Men. Those aren't personality types.

When they do get specific, they still aren't personality types but markets. I have a friend that makes commercials. Depending on the product, they can get quite specific. Single women in their late 30's to early 50's who own cats.

Lastly, while you could make a reasonable guess that an 18-24 year old male would prefer The Scorpion King over Moonlight Mile, you could not reverse engineer a personality type based on that preference. You would be wrong so often that such a prediction would be meaningless. Which is what I've been saying all along.

[The Postmaster General]

So you're saying I can't pressume that people whose favorite movies are Top Gun, Fast and Furious, XXX, and Extreme Ops have Type A personalities.

And I can't presume people who like American Beauty have Type B personalities

I repect your opinion.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
So you're saying I can't pressume that people whose favorite movies are Top Gun, Fast and Furious, XXX, and Extreme Ops have Type A personalities.

And I can't presume people who like American Beauty have Type B personalities

I repect your opinion.

TAP discussions only differentiate between 2 types -- A (defined as competitive, aggressive, high-stress), and B (everyone else).

No clinical studies have ever shown a link between TAP and TBP and their choices. One such study looked choice of college major, either art or business. In that case, the researchers presumed results based on TAP characteristics, yet ultimately found an even split between TAP and TBP in their choice of majors. Their conclusion was that, based on college major, you could not pin down a personality type.

I believe that's what you'd find if you actually took a survey of overall taste in movies based on personality types. The results would prevent any categorization based simply on choice of movies. Overall, for anyone who picked American Beauty, you'd probably find an even split between TAP and TBP. Same for XXX or Top Gun.

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
TAP discussions only differentiate between 2 types -- A (defined as competitive, aggressive, high-stress), and B (everyone else).

No clinical studies have ever shown a link between TAP and TBP and their choices. One such study looked choice of college major, either art or business. In that case, the researchers presumed results based on TAP characteristics, yet ultimately found an even split between TAP and TBP in their choice of majors. Their conclusion was that, based on college major, you could not pin down a personality type.

I believe that's what you'd find if you actually took a survey of overall taste in movies based on personality types. The results would prevent any categorization based simply on choice of movies. Overall, for anyone who picked American Beauty, you'd probably find an even split between TAP and TBP. Same for XXX or Top Gun.


ok, so let me ask you this. what if you didn't pick american beauty, xxx or top gun? then what???

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
ok, so let me ask you this. what if you didn't pick american beauty, xxx or top gun? then what???

Exactly. Or what if you liked both American Beauty AND Top Gun?

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox

I did not like Requiem for a Dream. I did not like American Beauty. I did not like Magnolia, but I loved Boogie Nights.



I'm with you, 4 for 4. You make good arguments here, B., but I must point out that you kind of undercut your position by writing so brillianty and passionately (and absolutely correctly, IMHO), about Citizen Kane in another thread ;)

I think there is one big key, here. Liking popcorn movies doesn't mark you as stupid. Liking them exclusively just might. This is especially true if you are completely contemptuous of all critically-praised films. That kind of unreasoning attitude is the flip-side of the "If it's not in the Critereon Collection, it's not good enough for me" attitude. No one should devote themselves to one style of movies, or even one quality level. It takes all kinds.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Exactly. Or what if you liked both American Beauty AND Top Gun?


So you're saying that even if the list was longer, someone couldn't relate what personality someone had based on the movies they like.


Why do they often enter movie rental histories into court records as a means of profiling the criminal?

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Why do they often enter movie rental histories into court records as a means of profiling the criminal?

They don't do it "often," and they don't profile based solely on movie lists.

Can you imagine?

"Your honor, the defendent raped this woman. Exhibit A. He loves Tootsie, Top Gun, and Fast and the Furious. Wait a second....Tootsie? He couldn't have done it. Case dismissed!"

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
They don't do it "often," and they don't profile based solely on movie lists.

Can you imagine?

"Your honor, the defendent raped this woman. Exhibit A. He loves Tootsie, Top Gun, and Fast and the Furious. Wait a second....Tootsie? He couldn't have done it. Case dismissed!"

i laughed outloud for that one.....

but see, a lot of people are saying that if you like this certain movie, then you must not be a certain person. ok.....i liked the movie bubble boy....what would that say about me? that i have no taste in movies? that i am stupid? i dunno...i am sure a lot of people would have a bad opinion about me. but, i liked bubble boy, american pie...but i also love magnolia, remains of the day, tootsie, scarface......so really, what can one or even two movies say about someone? you can't really say that a person has bad taste if they like ONE movie...or even ten. i think it's really lame to judge someone solely on the movies they watch. if they like something like xxx, maybe they were in teh mood for a non thinking, just action movie (i hated it, but thats besides the point) and then they might like something like magnolia because it has feeling, and you think. see, its lame to judge people on one piece of anything. its lame. just my opinion.

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
i laughed outloud for that one.....

but see, a lot of people are saying that if you like this certain movie, then you must not be a certain person. ok.....i liked the movie bubble boy....what would that say about me? that i have no taste in movies? that i am stupid? i dunno...i am sure a lot of people would have a bad opinion about me. but, i liked bubble boy, american pie...but i also love magnolia, remains of the day, tootsie, scarface......so really, what can one or even two movies say about someone? you can't really say that a person has bad taste if they like ONE movie...or even ten. i think it's really lame to judge someone solely on the movies they watch. if they like something like xxx, maybe they were in teh mood for a non thinking, just action movie (i hated it, but thats besides the point) and then they might like something like magnolia because it has feeling, and you think. see, its lame to judge people on one piece of anything. its lame. just my opinion.

man, could i have said lame any more? geez, over use of that word!:rolleyes:

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
man, could i have said lame any more? geez, over use of that word!:rolleyes:

You know, there's an edit button. ;)

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
You know, there's an edit button. ;)

ha ha i would have usedit, but when i realized i had said the word THAT many times, i already submitted my reply.....oops

:rolleyes:

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
ha ha i would have usedit, but when i realized i had said the word THAT many times, i already submitted my reply.....oops

:rolleyes:

You can edit AFTER you've submitted your reply. Just go to your post and hit "edit."

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
You can edit AFTER you've submitted your reply. Just go to your post and hit "edit."

oh

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
They don't do it "often," and they don't profile based solely on movie lists.




But why do they even consider movies?

[Beeblebrox]

But why do they even consider movies?

Do they? I could only make a guess based on what I know about criminal court cases.

Again, it seems (in the few cases I've heard of them doing this) that they are looking for evidence to back up what they already know about the behavior of the suspects in an investigation. And even then, only for certain behaviors. I don't know of it ever being used in an actual case as evidence the way a real psyche evaluation would be.

Why don't you do some research on it and let us know. How often would a technique like this be employed, if at all? How much does it contribute to the case, if at all? And is it used in the investigation or the actual trial?

And even if they do, does it mean you could tag someone's personality based on the movies they like? I've seen no convincing argument yet that you can.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
...does it mean you could tag someone's personality based on the movies they like? I've seen no convincing argument yet that you can.



And of course I've yet to see one stating you can't.


It's may take a romatic person to like Ghost, but would a person who likes Caddyshack have a sense of humour? I dunno, probably....

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
And of course I've yet to see one stating you can't.

That doesn't matter. If you make an assertion (or in this case, agree with one), such as being able to tag someone's personality based on the movies they like, then you should be able to back it up. No one, so far, has done that.

You've only said that you can, and that's not good enough.

The best evidence that I have that you can't do it is that no one has shown that you can. And I don't just mean anyone here. I mean in general. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

If I point to a building and say that I can jump it in a single bound and you say that I can't, then it's up to me to prove that I can do it. It's not enough, in the scientific community, to make a claim with no basis in reality. At some point I will have to leap that building, or the assumption will be simply that I can't do it.

And it's not enough to simply retort, "you haven't shown that I CAN'T leap that building in a single bound either." That's not an argument and it isn't proof of anything.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I hate to say this Beeblebrox but your arguments, whilst perfectly put and absolutely correct in every facet that you have argued, are lacking that one important factor: we know that human beings generalise and therfore assume (wrongly, you are correct, sir) that generalities are proof, when in fact they are just guidelines.

WE KNOW what we are saying is hypothetical. WE KNOW that you are speaking from a viewpoint that believes sterotyping, pigeonholing, generalising etc is wrong. But it doesn't make it any less the common procedure for a human being to simply categorise as A or B, with, in some cases, variants of A and B. We (meaning me and Bubba) are not trying to limit ANYONE when we offer our opinions...We have agreed on several occasions with you...but the simple fact is that your argumant has become less and less lucid and more and more idealistic.

Personally, I wouldn't deign to say that so-and-so is TYPE A based on trivial data and first impressions/observations. I don't think Bubba would. I KNOW you wouldn't. But it's obvious we are educated and better prepared to let the world be what the world wants it to be. My only regret, going back to my very first statement, is that I wish a few more people would be as open-minded as me (and that does not make me close-minded for saying it) when it comes to the more 'sophisticated' movies being made today...

[Beeblebrox]

I hate to say this Beeblebrox but your arguments, whilst perfectly put and absolutely correct in every facet that you have argued, are lacking that one important factor: we know that human beings generalise and therfore assume (wrongly, you are correct, sir) that generalities are proof, when in fact they are just guidelines.

I have no issue with generalizing per se. Everyone does it. Even stereotyping has its place.

My point is that your generalization --that GENERALLY you can tell a person's personality from the movies they watch-- isn't correct even under the broadest of contexts.

In fact, I'd argue, and I hate to beat a dead horse here, that the opposite is the case. That GENERALLY, you can't tell a person's personality from the movies they watch. I think one could find, if one searched hard enough, the broadest and basest examples that support your hypothesis. But generally, it's not true.

My only regret, going back to my very first statement, is that I wish a few more people would be as open-minded as me when it comes to the more 'sophisticated' movies being made today..

Self-proclaimed open-mindedness has never held much meaning for me. Everyone believes they are open-minded, just as everyone believes they have a sense of humor.

What I hear you saying is that you wish more people would try to like the films you like. Don't we all? I do. I simply disagree with your characterization that this makes you "open-minded" or that the films you like are "more sophisticated."

And now we find ourselves back at square one.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Very well put except for the part where you say that it was my generalisation that you could tell a personality from their taste in movies. I never said that - I think it was Bubba - but it's a minor quibble.

As for me thinking I'm open-minded, meaning people should share my taste in movies: not at all. However I will admit that I don't go to France and eat chips and egg. I'll try the native food. I do -- whether it's right or wrong -- believe I'm one of the most open-minded people I know in that I will watch anything once, regardless of genre, language, nationality, politics etc. I will watch anything once. The whole beginning of this debate was that SOME people won't. And that's for whatever reason; but it IS their reason.

And now, I believe, this is where we shake hands and congratulate ourselves on conducting a civilised and educational debate. Sir, I shall look forward to doing this again sometime -- how about next week?

"nothing was resolved, but nothing mattered"

[rushmore beauty]

I know! I came home from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and this is my convorsation with my mom and sister.

MOM: So, what did you think?
ME: It is overrated, but it's pretty good. The special effects were a lot better than the ones in the first, but the Quidditch math wasn't as good as the first one and what was the point of ending the movie with everyone clapping for Hagrid when he didn't do anything? That was lame.
SISTER (very angry): Well, I don't care what you think of it, I liked it.
ME: Umm, I said I liked it, i just didn't like those parts.
SISTER: I don't care, I thought it was the best movie ever.

What the hell? I thought Harry Potter was wicked, but my sister got all pissed at me because I thought there were a few flaws? That is just stupid (oh, and she's 13).

[The Postmaster General]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beeblebrox
That doesn't matter. If you make an assertion (or in this case, agree with one), such as being able to tag someone's personality based on the movies they like, then you should be able to back it up. No one, so far, has done that.

You've only said that you can, and that's not good enough.


Hey Beeblebrox, I never said I can do this, and I never said that it was right. What and did say, and you agreed with, is that there are people who can do this. You even stated that you were aware of court cases where people's movie tastes were submitted into a profile of their personality. Does this mean it is viable? No. Does this mean people can do it? You can sure as hell bet your ass you do. You even agreed with me of instances were people do.

What are you argueing?


The best evidence that I have that you can't do it is that no one has shown that you can. And I don't just mean anyone here. I mean in general. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

You showed that people can build profiles based on personality.

Burden of proof? Back off with the law talk, Perry Mason, or do we just have to dismiss the case, because there is no evidence to prosecute either?


If I point to a building and say that I can jump it in a single bound and you say that I can't, then it's up to me to prove that I can do it.

Why the hell would you tell me that you could do something you know is false?

It's not enough, in the scientific community, to make a claim with no basis in reality.

Is that how that works? Well, I guess it's okay for me to make a claim that it's viable for people to build personality profiles based on movie preferences since your agreeance that it's been done (maybe not often, but hell how often does lightning strike twice?).


At some point I will have to leap that building, or the assumption will be simply that I can't do it.

It's your own fault for bullshitting.


And it's not enough to simply retort, "you haven't shown that I CAN'T leap that building in a single bound either." That's not an argument and it isn't proof of anything.

Your honor, I revert to the cases of "I'm rubber you're glue.", and "Says you" to make my final point.

[Beeblebrox]

What and did say, and you agreed with, is that there are people who can do this. You even stated that you were aware of court cases where people's movie tastes were submitted into a profile of their personality. Does this mean it is viable? No. Does this mean people can do it? You can sure as hell bet your ass you do. You even agreed with me of instances were people do.

When did I ever agree with you on this? You mentioned something about court cases, I said I didn't know, and asked you to actually bother with some research so you're not just pulling this bullshit out of your ass. Either you couldn't find any facts or you didn't even try. The next thing I know, you're launching into some ridiculous tirade and putting words into my mouth.

Calm down, dude. Get a hold of yourself.

To repeat: I've heard of court cases in which they use movie rentals and library cards. That is a FAR CRY from agreeing with you that they use movie preferences to build a profile. I don't have any specifics. And I'm not going to bother looking it up to back up your dumbass argument.

[Beeblebrox]

The next thing I know, you're launching into some ridiculous tirade and putting words into my mouth.

I wish to apologize for this comment. This is the RANT section.

I still take issue with the putting words into my mouth, but I can't complain about your ridiculous tirade. Sorry.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I thought the three of us had debated this to a standstill. I agree with Bubba in theory because I know people can generalise. It's FACT. I agree with Beeblebrox in theory because I know this should NOT be the case. It's FACT. But let's be clear, I think why Bubba is annoyed is that we have reached a stalemate of a debate that can't be resolved but it's being treated like an ARGUMENT that must be won. That's not the point, I think. Let's chill out and come back to it later...

[The Postmaster General]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beeblebrox
When did I ever agree with you on this? You mentioned something about court cases, I said I didn't know, and asked you to actually bother with some research so you're not just pulling this bullshit out of your ass. Either you couldn't find any facts or you didn't even try. The next thing I know, you're launching into some ridiculous tirade and putting words into my mouth.


Proove to you that people can build profiles based on movie preferences?

Okay. Based on Reigh's movie preferences, I would say he is a Type B personality.

Can it be done?

I just did it.

Was it right?

I never said it was right. I said it can be done. I just did it.



Calm down, dude. Get a hold of yourself.

First telling me to go research something that you acknowledge happens, then telling me to calm down....

Beeble - You have written a dozen posts that had over 200 words. The first time I post something remotely large, you misinterpret my detail for explaination as me overreacting. Fine.


To repeat: I've heard of court cases in which they use movie rentals and library cards.


Why do they do this? To get ideas for something good to rent.

I got news for you - if something shows that someone is likely to engage in a certain behavior - certain behaviors are character traits. Traits make up a personality.


Bubba: Here is some cases where they use movie rentals to build a profile on someone.

Beelbebrox: Yeah, well they do that, but I'm not going to acknowledge that they do it in fear of loosing some arguement I'm insisting exists.


That is a FAR CRY from agreeing with you that they use movie preferences to build a profile.


I've asked you this three times now - Then WHY do they bother looking at the movies someone rents? WHY Beeblebrox? Why O' Why? If you can just acknowledge this question we will move so far into the future.

To repeat: I've heard of court cases in which they use movie rentals and library cards.

That is a FAR CRY from agreeing with you that they use movie preferences to build a profile.

Great, so you say that they use movie rentals and library cards - Why do they use them? Because it's funny? I'm at a contradictory cross roads.



I don't have any specifics. And I'm not going to bother looking it up to back up your dumbass argument.


Now you're just being shitty. And it's pronounced DoomAz...

[Irene Manor]

I agree with both sides here, but would like to point out that you all are argueing two different things.

Bubba is argueing whether people do build personality profiles based on movie tastes and rental histories.

Zaphod is argueing that while some people do this, it is not right.

So yeah, I agree with both.

Personality tests are pretty common in psychology. They have personality tests that are based on anything. That doesn't mean they are viable by a long shot.

In Minnisota, they actually did a study on the cars people drive in relation to the MMPI scale, which is similar to the ON/OFF construct of the Type A/B personality scales.

Some students from FMHI ran a research study where they tested an individuals GAF scores based on how much they new about sports, and what sports they liked. Everyone knew it was a total tongue in cheek study, but like most research, correlations were found, and it was sometimes right, and sometimes wrong.

Also, you have to remember the work of many censorship groups that have argued that violent movies cause people to act violently. I think this is a dumbass opinion, but the fact of the matter is that they did research to come to this conclusion.

I'm enjoying this rant section - Just got done reading through the one about guns, and that is worth a read. Muzzle makes a great point that fits into this thread: ANYTHING, no matter how absurd, can be shown with statistics. Profiling someone after knowing only what movies they like would definitely fit under that absurdity.

Here is a personality test where you just pick colors, nothing more. Pretty inaccurate, but it nailed me. Personally, I prefer the personality tests that tell me which movie character I am. :)

http://www.colorquiz.com/

[Reigh Kaufman]

Damn, Bubba. That was eerie how you knew I was Type B - heh-heh!

[Reigh Kaufman]

Irene Manor makes a good point about statistics.

Did you know, for example, that 86% of all statsistics are made up on the spot?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
Damn, Bubba. That was eerie how you knew I was Type B - heh-heh!


Well, it's eerie that I guessed right.

As far as me being able to hypothesize - I'm just amazed I could do it to begin with. I was starting to believe that graphing variables was a scientific impossibility.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
Irene Manor makes a good point about statistics.

Did you know, for example, that 86% of all statsistics are made up on the spot?



But you shouldn't rely solely on statistics.

Anyone who liked PI would generally agree with that.

And you shouldn't rule that just because you haven't seen something, doesn't make it not so.

Anyone who liked MAGNOLIA would generally agree with that.


JIM: I like Clerks, Annie Hall, Rushmore, Airplane, and Blazing Saddles.

JOHN: Oh, I take it you have a sense of humour.

JIM: Fuck you. You don't know me, man. Who do you think you are, judging me based on a few movies I like. Man, you are not the movies you watch!

JOHN: I take you also like Fight Club?

[The Postmaster General]

OOps, double double post post.

[Reigh Kaufman]

That was a joke -- 86% of statistics is a statistic I just made up. I hope I'm not stating the obvious (I doubt it, but hey, I'm not funny - or maybe I am, i mean, I did laugh at Everybody Loves Raymond that one time)...

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
That was a joke -- 86% of statistics is a statistic I just made up. I hope I'm not stating the obvious (I doubt it, but hey, I'm not funny - or maybe I am, i mean, I did laugh at Everybody Loves Raymond that one time)...


No way! I was just giving more shit. You were right though, the three of us seem to be getting very touchy about this whole nonexistent thing. We know what we know and that's good enough for me.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Irene Manor
Here is a personality test where you just pick colors, nothing more. Pretty inaccurate, but it nailed me. Personally, I prefer the personality tests that tell me which movie character I am. :)

http://www.colorquiz.com/

That shit is freaky!! It pinned me dead on.

Guys, relax. They're only movies, but I CAN tell that Bubba is a smartass, and Beeblebrox is easily excitable, just by reading your posts.

Damn, I'm good!;)

[freakandgeek]

another thing that sorta gets me...when i don't like a movie, everyone has to know why why why...why is that a big deal? i shouldn't HAVE to defend myself or even explain myself. sometimes i just want to say "i hate that movie" and leave it at that. it doesn't mean i don;t have reasons...but sometimes i don't want to explain my reasons.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
another thing that sorta gets me...when i don't like a movie, everyone has to know why why why...why is that a big deal? i shouldn't HAVE to defend myself or even explain myself. sometimes i just want to say "i hate that movie" and leave it at that. it doesn't mean i don;t have reasons...but sometimes i don't want to explain my reasons.


Yeah fuck those people. You should just be able to dislike movies and not tell anyone. Who the fuck are they to wonder why you don't like a movie? That is a clear insult against your character when you are asked to share your opinion. I know alot of people who think it is complimentary to a conversation, to ask for an opinion, but fuck those people, F & G - Fuck them. Fuck them in their stupid-not-knowing-why-you-don't-like-a-movie asses! Why do they ask your opinion when they don't deserve it in the first place? Who the hell needs to talk about a movie? Hell, in fact who the hell needs to tell people what they think of movies in the first place. Hahaha! My favorite movie is Barton Fink and you fuckers will never know why, because I'm so passed explaining myself! I know why I like the movie, and that's all that matters.

(Ahem)

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yeah fuck those people. You should just be able to dislike movies and not tell anyone. Who the fuck are they to wonder why you don't like a movie? That is a clear insult against your character when you are asked to share your opinion. I know alot of people who think it is complimentary to a conversation, to ask for an opinion, but fuck those people, F & G - Fuck them. Fuck them in their stupid-not-knowing-why-you-don't-like-a-movie asses! Why do they ask your opinion when they don't deserve it in the first place? Who the hell needs to talk about a movie? Hell, in fact who the hell needs to tell people what they think of movies in the first place. Hahaha! My favorite movie is Barton Fink and you fuckers will never know why, because I'm so passed explaining myself! I know why I like the movie, and that's all that matters.

(Ahem)

Refer to my previous post, about some unnamed individual being a smartass.:D

[Madeline]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
ok, so what do you think of someone who likes american pie but hates xxx?

Oh I don't know speaking strictly from those two movies I'd say that someone isn't into muscle men w/ bad acting skills and lots of explosions in movies but likes the new trend in teenage movies and gross out humor that likes to pretend it's something else. I'm sorry but I hated American Pie and I'd be interested to know why someone likes it. :o Don't get me wrong movies are for everybody and everybody is allowed to watch whatever they'd like and it doesn't say anything about their intelligence or social status or anything. I loved The Messenger but it seems like all the critics hated it but I don't mind. I'm just saying that movies tell me a lot about people and I could never deeply respect someone who loves disgusting movies for their quality. People who like gross out things for the sake of gross out things are different... :rolleyes:

[Grebdron]

What does it say about me that my favorite movie is Schindler's List, but I also like Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, etc? I loved Dumb and Dumber, and hated Magnolia.

I'm just stupid, huh?

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yeah fuck those people. You should just be able to dislike movies and not tell anyone. Who the fuck are they to wonder why you don't like a movie? That is a clear insult against your character when you are asked to share your opinion. I know alot of people who think it is complimentary to a conversation, to ask for an opinion, but fuck those people, F & G - Fuck them. Fuck them in their stupid-not-knowing-why-you-don't-like-a-movie asses! Why do they ask your opinion when they don't deserve it in the first place? Who the hell needs to talk about a movie? Hell, in fact who the hell needs to tell people what they think of movies in the first place. Hahaha! My favorite movie is Barton Fink and you fuckers will never know why, because I'm so passed explaining myself! I know why I like the movie, and that's all that matters.

(Ahem)

yeah thanks

:rolleyes:

[The Postmaster General]

Okay, sorry for joshing on you Freak. Me making jokes is one thing, but at the expense of your frustrations is another. That was very undude like of me.

But, I don't think your issue is with people wanting to know why you don't like a movie.

Likewise, I don't think your issue is really with people being TOO into movies.


I think you problem is when people are ass holes about asking why you don't like a movie.

I can't imagine why you would have issue with someone asking, "Oh, what didn't you like about it?"

I can, though, understand getting pissed when people are like, "Oh my God! You didn't like A.I.! How can you not like that? What's wrong with you? .......You didn't like it because of that? That is so wrong? For fucks sake! Why, man? Why don't you like A.I.? You must not understand it because it's over you head. Haha! Yeah, I bet that's it. You just don't understand drama! Ha!"


Is that anywhere close to being right?

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I can, though, understand getting pissed when people are like, "Oh my God! You didn't like A.I.! How can you not like that? What's wrong with you? .......You didn't like it because of that? That is so wrong? For fucks sake! Why, man? Why don't you like A.I.? You must not understand it because it's over you head. Haha! Yeah, I bet that's it. You just don't understand drama! Ha!"


Is that anywhere close to being right?


laws yes. thats what i meant when people are too into movies. thats EXACTLY what i was referring to. sure, i have asked people why they don't like a movie, but sometimes its just in the way they ask sometimes....but yeah...that was my whole point of the thread!! thanks for understanding

[Madeline]

Originally posted by Grebdron
What does it say about me that my favorite movie is Schindler's List, but I also like Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, etc? I loved Dumb and Dumber, and hated Magnolia.

I'm just stupid, huh?

My goodness I don't know... considering I love Adam Sandler and hated Magnolia too :o

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Madeline
My goodness I don't know... considering I love Adam Sandler and hated Magnolia too :o

dumbies uf th wurld, younite!!

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Grebdron
dumbies uf th wurld, younite!!

why dummies? its their personal preference...you can't really help what you like and what you dislike...you just do

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Okay, sorry for joshing on you Freak. Me making jokes is one thing, but at the expense of your frustrations is another. That was very undude like of me.

But, I don't think your issue is with people wanting to know why you don't like a movie.

Likewise, I don't think your issue is really with people being TOO into movies.


I think you problem is when people are ass holes about asking why you don't like a movie.

I can't imagine why you would have issue with someone asking, "Oh, what didn't you like about it?"

I can, though, understand getting pissed when people are like, "Oh my God! You didn't like A.I.! How can you not like that? What's wrong with you? .......You didn't like it because of that? That is so wrong? For fucks sake! Why, man? Why don't you like A.I.? You must not understand it because it's over you head. Haha! Yeah, I bet that's it. You just don't understand drama! Ha!"


Is that anywhere close to being right?

the reason why i started this thread is because one time i put in a review in imdb about american beauty. frankly, i can't stand that movie, but anyways, this guy started to write me emails about how stupid i was and how i didn't get it (which i think is the jerkiest thing to say...i could have just hated it and got it)..and thast when i think people are too into movies. i think what i meant to start the thread for is when people get angry at you and are mean to you because you don't like the same movies as them, or you don't like their favorite movie. i will never agree with that, i think its lame and the people who call me names or others names because they like certain things need to shut up and go away. thats why i started this thread. thats when i think people are too into movies....does that explain anything????

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
why dummies? its their personal preference...you can't really help what you like and what you dislike...you just do

See, that was pretty much self-deprecating humor. I don't consider myself or Madeline dumb for liking or disliking certain movies. I DO consider alot of people dumb, but not for their movie preferences.

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Grebdron
See, that was pretty much self-deprecating humor. I don't consider myself or Madeline dumb for liking or disliking certain movies. I DO consider alot of people dumb, but not for their movie preferences.

gee, sorry

but i guess you think i am dumb because of what i said...great....:(

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
gee, sorry

but i guess you think i am dumb because of what i said...great....:(

Nah, it's all good.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by freakandgeek
the reason why i started this thread is because one time i put in a review in imdb about american beauty. frankly, i can't stand that movie, but anyways, this guy started to write me emails about how stupid i was and how i didn't get it (which i think is the jerkiest thing to say...i could have just hated it and got it)..and thast when i think people are too into movies. i think what i meant to start the thread for is when people get angry at you and are mean to you because you don't like the same movies as them, or you don't like their favorite movie. i will never agree with that, i think its lame and the people who call me names or others names because they like certain things need to shut up and go away. thats why i started this thread. thats when i think people are too into movies....does that explain anything????


Several of those of us who hate Magnolia (electriclite has been very eloquent in this regard), have really bristled at some of the arguments thrown our way, some of which have been of the "You just don't get it" variety. You're not alone.

As much as I love my favorite movies, and as much as I'll defend them in discussions, I can't imagine ever harrassing anyone personally for a dissenting opinion. That's just insane. Anyone who does that is, in fact, "Too Into Movies."

(I wonder if Chris Cooper's character was that guy's favorite in American Beauty? Something tells me he was... :D)

[Grebdron]

Finally found out where your moniker is from, Buck. Just saw it last night. George C. Scott was very good, as was Peter Sellers. But I wasn't blown away.

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
Several of those of us who hate Magnolia (electriclite has been very eloquent in this regard), have really bristled at some of the arguments thrown our way, some of which have been of the "You just don't get it" variety. You're not alone.

As much as I love my favorite movies, and as much as I'll defend them in discussions, I can't imagine ever harrassing anyone personally for a dissenting opinion. That's just insane. Anyone who does that is, in fact, "Too Into Movies."

(I wonder if Chris Cooper's character was that guy's favorite in American Beauty? Something tells me he was... :D)

i am glad you came forward. ha ha i am also glad i am not alone:)

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Finally found out where your moniker is from, Buck. Just saw it last night. George C. Scott was very good, as was Peter Sellers. But I wasn't blown away.

I would've told you if you'd asked, G. ;)

George Campbell Scott was a god. No one else could have, in the space of 6 years, played Patton and Turgidson, and played each brilliantly. (Scott said in interviews that he based a lot of Turgidson on a friend of his Father's, a gung-ho salesman).

That film improves each time you see it.

[Jason Voorhees]

Ahh! Well, that's cool. I'd been wondering where the influence for your moniker had come from, Buck.

Now I know, General :D.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
I would've told you if you'd asked, G. ;)

George Campbell Scott was a god. No one else could have, in the space of 6 years, played Patton and Turgidson, and played each brilliantly. (Scott said in interviews that he based a lot of Turgidson on a friend of his Father's, a gung-ho salesman).

That film improves each time you see it.

I saw in the extras on the DVD that Scott was actually kind of pissed at Kubrick. Apparently Scott wanted to play it more straight, so they'd film it that way. Then Kubrick would ask him to play the scenes over-the-top, just to get it on film. Those were the scenes he used. Scott apparently once said that that wasn't really his performance.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Grebdron
I saw in the extras on the DVD that Scott was actually kind of pissed at Kubrick. Apparently Scott wanted to play it more straight, so they'd film it that way. Then Kubrick would ask him to play the scenes over-the-top, just to get it on film. Those were the scenes he used. Scott apparently once said that that wasn't really his performance.

I find it very hard to believe that some of the best performances of all time come from people who didn't want them to turn out that way. But...it appears in many cases to be true....damn shame.

[Buck Turgidson]

Stan intended to play the whole film straight, and it just kind of morphed into a dark satire as time went on. The absurdity of it all just couldn't be sustained.

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman


Therefore when it comes to movies, of which I find American Beauty to be one of the untenable, in terms of story and direction etc, I find myself quite irritated by the fact that people refuse to make an effort to appreciate it...

i know this was posted a while ago, but i wanted to comment. when i watched american beauty, i watched all of it. i even tried it again (i watched it at a friends house)....so i gave it a chance. i am not being snooty, i just hope you weren't irritated at me because i used american beauty as an example. i made an effort...i swear! :)