#1  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:29 AM
Apples and oranges

I never understood this phrase, used when someone says "oh you can't compare this movie with this movie, the'yre so different". So what, in order to be compared they have to be in the same genre/style/themes/decade/language/etc???
That makes no sense to me. I mean good acting is good acting, a well-written script is a well written script, special effects are special effects... the whole phrase is pretty stupid. If you can't compare apples with oranges, both juicy fruits, what the hell can you compare between??
Films have certain general criteria that make them films, so surely you should be able to compare them as films. Now, if you were to make specific comparisons like, the depiction of extra-terrestrial life in Star Wars, as opposed to say, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, then that would be a different story.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:34 AM
Agreed. It's not just the case with movies, it's the case with a lot of things. I think it's okay to literally compare apples and oranges; it's just whichever one you like more based on whatever criteria.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-01-2012, 06:46 PM
I could not disagree with you more.

Transformers or just about any Bay film is not meant to challenge you or win any awards beyond techincal ones. His movies are made for the viewer to enjoy mindless fun action (eye candy if you will) and make money. Any of the 2011 Oscar noms with the exception of Toy Story 3 was not made simply to make money and be eye candy.

Any of these shity fucking ass so called horror films are made to make money. That is it. You can not compare them to any other than themselves. Some movies are made just to try to win awards and be praised as good theater.

You can't compare these movies. They are apple and oranges. Both movies, made to offer the viewer vastly different things.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-02-2012, 01:28 AM
I'm not going to be comparing Freddy Got Fingered to Goodfellas... they are 2 different movies with 2 different purposes and cant be put on the same playing field.

It is kind of like when, in entertainment weekly, I am not 100% certain of the movies, but lets just use Hot Rod and The Hurt Locker (i know those arent the movies that were used, but i cant think of the movies, but I do think hot Rod was actually 1 of them, but again, dont remember at all)

but anyway, the reviewer in Entertainment Weekly gave Hot Rod and A and also gave Hurt Locker an A and a ton of people wrote in giving the reviewer shit cuz how could both of those movies receive the same grade... and the reviewer just explained that each movie had different goals, and for both of them, they hit those goals enough to each earn their respective A's.

In my opinion Dumb and Dumber is a better movie than The Godfather, because even though I enjoy Godfather, I can watch Dumb & Dumber 20 times before I'd watch The Godfather again (in fact, i have only ever seen it once... it is a great movie... but it is just one of those that I cant just sit and watch).. but you cant really say Dumb and Dumber is a better movie than Godfather (even though I'd argue it is).. and comparing those 2 movies is pointless because what they are, what they set out to do, is 2 completely different things.


Edit: Now i think about it, I think the movie was Harold & Kumar Christmas Movie that the reviewer gave an A to, I dont remember the second movie.

Last edited by SkyNet; 09-02-2012 at 10:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-02-2012, 08:41 AM
Erroneous, I know what you mean buddy, but let's say you have Ben Kingsley in the Uwe Boll video game adaptation classic Bloodrayne and Ben Kingsley in say, Schindler's List. Clearly the intentions of the filmmakers are poles apart, yet Kingsley is in both of them. Could his performance in these two films not be compared? After all, it's the same dude. Both films are also based on original, highly-praised (at least, within certain circles) source material (Schindler's List > Schindler's Ark the book, Bloodrayne is based on a video game of the same name). Both films deal with 'absolute evil' and contain graphic violence.

My point is they're both films, and as magjournal said you can dream up all sorts of criteria, however flimsy, to compare the two.

SkyNet... I would argue you can still compare Godfather with Dumb and Dumber/Harold and Kumar/whatever comedy (I'd say D&D is a better basis for comparison as it's considered more of a 'classic', but whatever I'm undermining my own point here lol)... let's say the characters and performances, which actors/actresses offer the best portrayal of a memorable film personality? I haven't seen Dumb and Dumber, but I could compare say Eddie Murphy as a lead in Trading Places vs Ray Liotta in Goodfellas. As funny as Eddie was, he basically just played himself, while Liotta really threw himself into the role.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-02-2012, 02:01 PM
I like apples.
Oh sure, oranges have all that vitamin C an' shit,
but apples,
when I bite into one, I feel like I'm really biting into one.
Plus, since I don't have to peel it before I'm eat one, they have that low maintenance factor.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump