The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny

[Walpknut]

Ego stroking walls of text aside I just had a epiphany with the message and meaning of Grand Buddapest Hotel. It's a movie about the act of reading and excersizing the death of the author.

 

[SnapSlav]

Being that you're such a shining example of objectivity, I imagine that you yourself possess an immaculate organ of perfect objective perception, unclouded by any subjectivity whatsoever, no?

If that is indeed the case, then I hardly have anything to say anymore. Good luck with your cause. It is among the most senseless ones I've ever heard of. (Don't take this is as an insult).

A stock-and-standard "we're done here" token phrase followed by "Don't take this as an insult"? What is that, some lame excuse for a retreat?

And no. For perhaps the millionth time (yes, very aware that's exaggeration) I never once claimed to be omniscient, or all-knowing, or infallible, or any of that bullshit people seem to think I'm claiming when I say I aim for an intellectual pursuit. I honestly don't understand how people constantly reach that bizarre conclusion. Has EVERYONE ELSE EVER who has at any time stated lofty goals ONLY ever been God-complex simpletons? Has there not been a single instance of someone reconciling their own ineptitude via the lofty ambition of knowledge-seeking? Do you not understand that the objective of illumination is a very hard one, that it's not instantaneously rewarding, and can you not conceive of the notion that I also realize this? To strive for it doesn't automatically make you God, it just makes you wish you were less fallible than you were. But the most important thing is this: It's stark recognition that you are fallible. For instance, when I say (and I do say this) that I'm out to perfect my personal BBQ cooking, that means PRECISELY "My BBQ cooking isn't good enough. I want it to be better." but it does NOT mean "It is perfect." When I say I'm out to refine my writing, that means I acknowledge that it is limited and that I can easily broaden my understanding to improve my craft. When I say I wish further my understanding of free markets, that means I recognize THAT I DO NOT have an absolute understanding. Etc etc, further examples stating the same thing cause apparently once isn't enough.

Now how bout you stop lobbing hollow accusations and come down to a level of a human being, and have the decency to accept that they mean well when someone tells you they mean well. Don't be an ass to them just cause you don't understand (or simply don't wish to appreciate) what they're getting at. =P

 

[Atomkilla]

No, I do not understand what's your cause. Aside from you making it overly confusing with a bunch of examples which don't seem to be overly related to the topic we're discussing, you claim you pursue pure objectivity and purging subjectivity from other's vernacular or whatever.
I find that to be nonsensical. I find true objectivity to be absolutely unattainable for any single unit of a homo sapiens species, especially when it comes to art. If we were talking about science, I'd grant your claims a merit, but "objective absolute" when it comes to art makes no sense to me. Besides, can you point out that particular objective absolute? Frankly, I'm confused what you tried to pull there.

I'd add objective fun to the mix there too. First time I've ever heard of that one. If there were a thing like objective fun, then there would probably be a single form of entertainment, or a single form of art, when that would satisfy everybody's criteria since it would be the same, given that, if it's objective fun, everyone would strive for the best objective fun, and once something like that would be achieved, we would all live in eternal bliss, no?

If you would be kind enough to explain these thing without using convoluted terms and phrases, and without being overly arrogant, I might give you something you would consider the proper answer, one from a human being, since, apparently, I'm not on that level anymore.

And, lest not forget, you haven't answered the question I asked in the previous post. No, that was not intended as a getaway ticket, regardless of you ignoring it.
Simply put, how do you exactly perceive objectivity that you constantly speak of? In what ways? How do you measure the objective merit of art or whatever other thing is in question here, without that first being ran through your (highly fallible) subjective system of sensory and sensorial impulses?
Since you prefer a conflict over conversation, as it leads to enlightenment, then please, do enlight me on that one.

 

[Akratus]

No way am I reading all of that.

So, anyone seen Guardians of the Galaxy? Apparantly. . .

Spoiler

the after-credits scene is howard the duck.

Spoiler

I'm not even kidding.

 

[TorontoReign]

Being that you're such a shining example of objectivity, I imagine that you yourself possess an immaculate organ of perfect objective perception, unclouded by any subjectivity whatsoever, no?

If that is indeed the case, then I hardly have anything to say anymore. Good luck with your cause. It is among the most senseless ones I've ever heard of. (Don't take this is as an insult).

A stock-and-standard "we're done here" token phrase followed by "Don't take this as an insult"? What is that, some lame excuse for a retreat?

And no. For perhaps the millionth time (yes, very aware that's exaggeration) I never once claimed to be omniscient, or all-knowing, or infallible, or any of that bullshit people seem to think I'm claiming when I say I aim for an intellectual pursuit. I honestly don't understand how people constantly reach that bizarre conclusion. Has EVERYONE ELSE EVER who has at any time stated lofty goals ONLY ever been God-complex simpletons? Has there not been a single instance of someone reconciling their own ineptitude via the lofty ambition of knowledge-seeking? Do you not understand that the objective of illumination is a very hard one, that it's not instantaneously rewarding, and can you not conceive of the notion that I also realize this? To strive for it doesn't automatically make you God, it just makes you wish you were less fallible than you were. But the most important thing is this: It's stark recognition that you are fallible. For instance, when I say (and I do say this) that I'm out to perfect my personal BBQ cooking, that means PRECISELY "My BBQ cooking isn't good enough. I want it to be better." but it does NOT mean "It is perfect." When I say I'm out to refine my writing, that means I acknowledge that it is limited and that I can easily broaden my understanding to improve my craft. When I say I wish further my understanding of free markets, that means I recognize THAT I DO NOT have an absolute understanding. Etc etc, further examples stating the same thing cause apparently once isn't enough.

Now how bout you stop lobbing hollow accusations and come down to a level of a human being, and have the decency to accept that they mean well when someone tells you they mean well. Don't be an ass to them just cause you don't understand (or simply don't wish to appreciate) what they're getting at. =P

I've said it before Snap, but tone that pretentious attitude down man. Do you understand? You don't get it? Can you not conceive of? Jesus dude. Claiming that a movie is objectively fun and other opinions are wrong!? Don't take this wrong either, but this is coming from the guy that actually praised Amazing Spiderman 2? I say all of this because I genuinely love the debates you have, I even get your ambition for "true illumination", but I cannot sit here and listen to your philosophical musings about whether Atom is too stupid to get the utterly ridiculous notions you brought up.

I say this because I consider you an "internet friend" and I too strive to be better...

Step off your high horse. True enlightenment cannot be achieved with an ego the size of the Grand Canyon.

Don't say you aren't being pretentious either. I know pretentious when I see it. I have a big ego at times too and I hate it. It's...disgusting.

 

[Akratus]

What is that, some lame excuse for a retreat?

You know, I think that the idea that an argument is somehow a fight that you have to win, is just silly. Do you even remember what this whole thing was about? Whether the Expendables movies are fun. I'd suggest looking back and re-evaluating your previous posts.

 

[TorontoReign]

What is that, some lame excuse for a retreat?

You know, I think that the idea that an argument is somehow a fight that you have to win, is just silly. Do you even remember what this whole thing was about? Whether the Expendables movies are fun. I'd suggest looking back and re-evaluating your previous posts.

WALL OF TEXT INCOMING!

He's extremely belligerent at times, when it comes to disagreeing with him anyway. Look at some of his recent responses against Welsh for instance. He resorted to an outright personal attack after one response. It's very unflattering. The great thing is it's all right there for everyone to read. Very little room for backtracking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That being said. I watched 21 Jump Street the other day. I really liked it. Some parts were a little forced with Channing Tatum, but he surprised me, as did Jonah Hill. Ice Cube had some of the best parts in the movie. Love those stereotypes! I need me some Doug Mcquaid! I'm hoping 22 Jump Street is as good. I'm also looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy, but not nearly as much as Avengers: AoU, and I don't care what you say I'm excited for Antman. The Edgar Wright thing left me a bit pissed with him personally. I can't believe that they would let Gunn do whatever the hell he wanted basically, but they wouldn't let Wright. Sounds like Edgar Wright didn't understand he doesn't own Antman to me. Of course everyone will blame the evil studio, but I'm left with a sense that Edgar Wright thinks he is Ridley Scott or some shit.

Now. SPOILERS FOR AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2!




Massive letdown. The rumors of the script being unfinished while shooting wasn't damning evidence, Iron Man was the same, but it wasn't a good sign. Let's start with the portrayal of Peter Parker. Andrew Garfield does a good job, don't get me wrong, but he still doesn't feel quite like Parker. I do have problems with the humor. It's just not funny. A few parts get half hearted laughs, but overall he doesn't capture the humor of Spiderman. I hate to go back to the old Raimi flicks, but the first two captured his personality as Spiderman perfectly. His smartass comments to Doc Ock were classic. When he webbed Goblin in the face in the old one, it was an instant classic. Hell even in Spidey 3 he had some great lines with Sandman: "Where do they get these guys?" He says as he dumps sand out of his boots.

What did we get in Amazing Spiderman 2? A horrible opening act against Rhino without his suit. I say horrible, because Spiderman's attempts at humor were pretty unimpressive. He makes some smartass comments while Rhino blunders around with the semi and his gun, they weren't really funny, then it was over. Okay. No big loss. He's not the main villain, right? Enter Electro. Watch Jamie Foxx pull off one of the worst villain roles I think I've seen since Batman and Robin. Not his fault of course. He did his job as best as could be expected. The whole thing felt like Batman Forever really, in the beginning at least. You have Jamie Foxx playing Edward Enigma, dorking up Oscorp, constantly treated like shit, and generally embarrassing the audience. Oh and he just happens to LOVE Bruce Wayne, uh, I mean Spiderman, for some reason, so it leaves him with a motive to hate him when he gets shafted later. Cue dramatic metamorphosis once Foxx gets bit by...uh radioactive Eels?

From there he becomes the typical cliche villain that we deserve but don't really want. Carnage ensues. Spiderman saves shit and beats Electro down in Time Square, which you already saw in the trailer for the most par. Actually, you probably saw most of the movie already if you watched the trailers. The most blatant example of that in modern movie history. Now the movie does have some really good parts. Many of them having to do with Gwen Stacy. I loved how they carried over the story from Amazing Spiderman 1, which was Spidey promising to Capt. Stacy that he would leave Gwen alone, protecting her from his enemies, yadda, yadda. They addressed it really well I think. The parts where Spidey kept seeing Capt. Stacy as a reminder of his promise were fucking excellent. I use "fucking excellent" to emphasize how much I liked those parts. They were really, really well done. It's just a shame the whole thing fell apart.

I heard some praise over the internet about Harry Osborne's part in the movie. Overall, I thought it was forced, which isn't surprising since they needed to introduce him quickly and get people to understand that Peter and Harry were best friends long ago. Problem was it didn't work. Harry had some very good scenes, like the one in the board room, even the one with Electro was pretty decent, but I think they should have just stuck with Harry and left out Electro altogether. Seems they wanted Goblin and Electro in the same movie just because. They wanted to showcase a new villain while telling the Death of Gwen Stacy storyline. What happened is they only barely succeeded with the Gwen story and Electro was utterly pointless. Gwens death was shocking even though I knew it would happen, but I would go as far to say that was the only great part of the movie. The rest was only passable.

I liked the relationship with Aunt May, even more than the first maybe, but she didn't get much screentime, so there isn't too much to talk about there. The one touching scene she has with Peter in his room talking about his parents was sweet, as was her reaction at graduation when he mentioned his parents. No complaints there other than her being sidelined for Max Dillon and Harry Osborn development which didn't really go anywhere. You can say this is all being left for future installments, but judging by this one alone, it just doesn't measure up to quality titles in the genre like Captain America: Winter Soldier or even Iron Man. I would go the extra mile and say that this movie was made strictly for kids. It's obvious large segments of plot were left at the cutting room floor, like Parker being watched by Osborn for instance, and of course Mary Jane wa cut, with good reason now that you see the finished product. Was Felicia Hardy given anything worth her being included? At this point, it looks like, and I really think, they include small characters like Felicia and Jameson just to appease fans and cater to casuals for everything else. What happens is you get "Osborne's Assistant" turned into a full fledged "Felica Hardy" with nothing that makes her that character aside from the name.

The special effects were...what is the word I'm trying to look for? Unbelievable maybe. Very obvious. Frequent use of slowdown during these scenes was tiring. The acting from the crowd during these scenes was even worse. I'm thinking of the scene where Electro tried to electrocute the stairway in Times Square. They even threw a woman carrying her baby around for the feels. Besides the fact that I would never carry my baby around like that in Times Square, it just looked corny. Actually, the vast majority of the movie was so corny it hurts. If I see one more stupid, mind numbingly bad attempt at catering to kids in these movies I will hurl. Take the one at the very end of the movie, where the dumbass kid runs out in a Spiderman costume since Spidey isn't around to save the day. Why? God why? It's worse than the construction workers banding together to make platforms for Spidey to swing on. It's worse than New Yorkers saying you mess with one of us you mess with all of us. It's worse than Iron Man stopping to save a kid in an Iron Man helmet. This cliche is fucking dead okay? Be more creative than putting a costume on a kid. Dark Knight did it right I think. It's gotten to the point where I almost feel ashamed to watch the movie. I get it. Superheroes = kid stuff okay? Quit throwing it in my fucking face in every movie with some corny heartwarming scene that makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Winter Soldier did it well. Steve Rogers was in the Smithsonian in civilian gear and a kid with a Cap shirt saw him. Steve put his finger up to his lips telling him not to say anything and the kid just looked at him amazed. The movie didn't grind to a halt. Everyone didn't stop and say, "LOOK A FUCKING KID GUYS!", it just did it and moved on in 10 seconds. The reason this bothers me is they did a similar scene in Amazing Spiderman 1 where he putzed around, gave a kid his mask to be strong and all that shit. Thats fine really. Inspire some kids. I used to be a kid, I know these movies are made with them in mind too, but don't hammer me in the head every time you make a new one. I'll wager a bet Amazing Spiderman 3 will do the same.

What did I miss? The music I suppose. It was better than the first, which isn't saying very much, but it left me wanting. Parts were downright annoying, but some of it was impressive. Most of the upbeat Spidey swinging through the city music was crap, while the dramatic score was generally above average. The whole product felt rushed, haphazardly thrown together to see what sticks, while staying focused on the Gwen death as a payoff. The payoff didn't exceed the mediocrity to get there. If ever there was a quick cash in on the popularity of Spiderman and the superhero genre, this one was it. Average at best comes to mind. It felt like a wasted opportunity. Screw that. It IS a wasted opportunity. When will we ever get the Death of Gwen Stacy again? Not anytime soon that's for sure. No doubt they will up the stakes in the future. I can see the Sinister Six going after Aunt May or MJ down the line, with Harry knowing the truth. The problem is I don't really care anymore. Venom, Sinister Six, Amazing Spiderman 3? There was a time when these would be my most anticipated superhero movies? I have a damn Spiderman tat on my arm for crying out loud. Right now, I feel like Sony is failing at pulling off a Marvel Studios style universe. Badly.

Anyone feel free to tell me I'm wrong though. I look forward to it.

 

[zegh8578]

The Lego movie was actually surprisingly funny. I was gonna half-watch it, while doing other stuff, but only moments in, I found myself maximizing the window, and watching it intently.

 

[Walpknut]

The LEGO Movie is the best Animated Family movie in the last 5 years, the second best would be Rango. There I said it. Pixar's time is done.

 

[TorontoReign]

The LEGO Movie is the best Animated Family movie in the last 5 years, the second best would be Rango. There I said it. Pixar's time is done.

Until Pixar does a Marvel movie.

I tend to agree though. I miss the old Disney movies now more than ever really. All of this CG shit gets tiresome. Monster University was a downgrade from the original. I need to watch Rango again. Lego Movie was very well done. I loved Will Ferrell in that near the end. Instant classic.

 

[Walpknut]

Is not so much the CG that is the problem, the problem is their refusal to go out of their designated style. They just keep doing the same movies over and over again, but with decreasing quality.

 

[TorontoReign]

Is not so much the CG that is the problem, the problem is their refusal to go out of their designated style. They just keep doing the same movies over and over again, but with decreasing quality.

Eh. I tend to prefer high quality animation, but I understand why they don't do it anymore. Princess and the Frog was better than Frozen, imo. I know that isn't Pixar but still.

 

[SnapSlav]

Yeah, the big debate just keeps getting bigger. So, to save on space, I'm just gonna compartmentalize each section to its "designated" recipient (though that doesn't mean all aren't welcome to peruse each and add their own thoughts).

On topic, however... One of my cable service's channels has been repeating that early 00's Lost in Space remake movie, and I've been trying to watch it..... I don't even know why, because it wasn't a particularly great film when it was out, and what I've seen hasn't aged particularly well. But for now I can't form a complete assessment of it, because EVERY time it's on, I've either missed the first half of it, or some important task takes me away once I'm an hour in, so I haven't seen the whole film in one sitting in a very, very long time. All I do know is... Dated CGI. Kinda unrelatable characters. Child actor that makes you cringe to watch his scenes. WHY I'm trying to watch this film when it's on thoroughly I really don't know... I just... gotta...

To Atomkilla:

Spoiler

No, I do not understand what's your cause. [...] I find that to be nonsensical. I find true objectivity to be absolutely unattainable

And that is where we differ. I do. Within the confines of a human being's innately fragile and incomprehensible ineptitude at conceiving the entirety of existence around them, through rational discourse and judicious introspection we can come to some primitive understanding of the objective reality we exist within. Unlike you, I don't consider the restriction of our understanding limited to cognitive processes to be a crutch worthy of abandoning the pursuit over. It's only through attempting the impossible that we can achieve the extraordinary (my own variation of the phrase "mankind's reach exceeds his grasp"), because if all we do is accept our limitations and stop short of attempting anything, then we achieve nothing.

Besides, can you point out that particular objective absolute? Frankly, I'm confused what you tried to pull there.

What's there to be confused about? I pointed out what objectively, definitively transpired. You fixated on your subjective experience of it, I honed in on that which WAS experienced. THAT'S my modus operandi. It's not some absurdity like you're making it out to be where I attempt to take a subjective experience and extrapolate an objective falsehood from it; I separate the subjective from the objective, and I PERSONALLY disdain the former.

I'd add objective fun to the mix there too. First time I've ever heard of that one.

I'll use one of your earlier responses as an example of illustrating the error being made. Just as you pointed out that I missed the following phrase of "if you ask me" when I quoted you to say "The Expendables are an antonym to 'fun'", I'd likewise point out that you missed the following phrase of "or at least objective ATTEMPT at being fun". My point was that no matter how far you could go with asserting that your subjective experience mattered more than anything else, at the very least you'd have to acknowledge their attempt at being fun with their film. Whether their attempts fell completely flat (as you insist) or not, that point still stands. How it's received is irrelevant to what it attempted; meaning it would certainly be a shame if its goals were utterly missed, but that doesn't say that they didn't try it, attempt it, strive for it, or whatnot.

And, lest [we] not forget, you haven't answered the question I asked in the previous post. No, that was not intended as a getaway ticket, regardless of you ignoring it.
Simply put, how do you exactly perceive objectivity that you constantly speak of? In what ways? How do you measure the objective merit of art or whatever other thing is in question here, without that first being ran through your (highly fallible) subjective system of sensory and [cognitive] impulses?

I didn't avoid addressing anything. I didn't see any sincere question. I saw a snobby, caustic, and sarcastic derision of what I'd previously expressed by belittling them to "some organ" governing my awareness of objectivity, a description of self-perceived nigh-deific perfection, and a clear implication of a superiority complex on my part, rather than any genuine question. I imagined, if you were serious, that your question would come off less inflammatory, and more poignant. But what I got was flames, so since I don't indulge myself in flame wars, I "avoided" THAT.

If you really were asking a serious question, then you'd realize you're inviting yourself to a very lengthy Descartesian philosophical debate, and that's something we don't have the time for (these discussions are taking enough tangential space from an unrelated topic as it is). The extremely brief version of that answer is: discourse. Discussion. Debate. Comparison of ideas. If your perception of reality is different from mine, we can only arrive at a definitive conclusion by discussing the two. There is no inherent and absolute understanding within human biology that, like a liver processes chemicals in your body, governs your sense of "objective reality". The closest thing is, duh, your brain, and even then there's room for debate on its role in objective versus sensory. Key word there (which I'd hope you notice has been repeating itself over and over) is "debate".

I'm a fan of the work of RoosterTeeth Productions, and on their weekly podcasts they frequently berate fellow cast member Gavin Free as "the idiot", yet they equally frequently acknowledge that he says some really brilliant ideas, but often through a filter of "dumb words" (e.g. their shirt of his quote "Does rocks float on lava?"). One of his ongoing fascinations was begging the question of the brain's processes, and how reliable it is to assessing our reality. He asked (another fine idea, said in a bit of a dumb way) what if his consciousness could inhabit the person next to him; would the colors be the same? He wondered if someone else's cognitive "wiring" were different enough that the hue they saw when they looked at "red" would be his visualized color for "brown", but that because they'd both look at the same thing and call it the same thing, neither of them could know if they were perceiving it differently. And this is a notion of subjectivity that I do not disregard, and I find the subject quite fascinating. All the same, it just begets more study. More discussion. More inquiry.

Since you prefer a conflict over conversation, as it leads to enlightenment, then please, do [enlighten] me on that one.

Um, conversation IS conflict. Debate, argument, civil discourse. Whatever you call it, they're the same thing. Passivity is what I avoid, and I go to the extra lengths of distinguishing them by calling my preferred "conflict". You seem to think I want something besides discussion, when discussion is EXACTLY what I want. The conflict of discourse.

. . . . .

The sad thing is, I feel like once again I was accurate, precise, and exact in my answers, but if history is any guide, somehow you'll have misunderstood what I just said, anyway...

To Toront:

Spoiler

I've said it before Snap, but tone that pretentious attitude down man. Do you understand? You don't get it? Can you not conceive of? Jesus dude. Claiming that a movie is objectively fun and other opinions are wrong!? Don't take this wrong either, but this is coming from the guy that actually praised Amazing Spiderman 2? I say all of this because I genuinely love the debates you have, I even get your ambition for "true illumination", but I cannot sit here and listen to your philosophical musings about whether Atom is too stupid to get the utterly ridiculous notions you brought up.

I say this because I consider you an "internet friend" and I too strive to be better...

Step off your high horse. True enlightenment cannot be achieved with an ego the size of the Grand Canyon.

Don't say you aren't being pretentious either. I know pretentious when I see it. I have a big ego at times too and I hate it. It's...disgusting.

I can really appreciate what you're trying to say, but I will have to tell you that you're entering into this with a bit of a lack of context. For starters, I've been reaching the boiling point with regards to people taking a very exact statement from me and extrapolating a sentiment that I hadn't even REMOTELY stated nor even implied whatsoever, repeatedly, and I voiced this frustration on several occasions. I even dubbed this "the belt" to which I would "carve another notch" every time I'd say something very direct only for it to be misconstrued. And is this entirely the recipient's fault that they misunderstood my message? No. I never thought it was, it could very easily be a product of my inability to adequately convey myself, but that possibility doesn't excuse the possibility of their responsibility either. If I'm totally at fault for not being exact and succinct, then that's on me. But time and time again, I go over things said and responses made over and over and I see no room for interpretation, yet MASSIVE misinterpretations were still made. And not just made, but arrogantly stated, and used as a strawman punching bag to make me look bad... make me look bad with statements and notions that weren't even mine, but their own! THAT is what I mean when I repeated the question "do you understand?" in its various permutations.

It's an ongoing frustration, and the more I see it, the more it frustrates me. Many times it seems like these people are just unwilling to accept fault of the slightest degree, and THAT is high horse arrogance, not my outburst at hatred towards it. On that note, I genuinely don't get what people see when they assert that I'm stroking my own ego, or that I have an ego the size of the Grand Canyon. I really don't; of all members on NMA you ought to know this very well. Again, I appreciate your "call to reason" that you're attempting, and I don't wish to snub your for it at all, but I do think it's at least slightly mistaken. That being said, that doesn't mean I don't take EVERY opportunity to reflect on matters and not question myself, and naturally your pleas don't go unheard. I am resolute that I am not being pretentious and arrogant, but I won't ignore that you feel like I'm coming off that way.

EDIT:

What is that, some lame excuse for a retreat?

You know, I think that the idea that an argument is somehow a fight that you have to win, is just silly. Do you even remember what this whole thing was about? Whether the Expendables movies are fun. I'd suggest looking back and re-evaluating your previous posts.

WALL OF TEXT INCOMING!

He's extremely belligerent at times, when it comes to disagreeing with him anyway. Look at some of his recent responses against Welsh for instance. He resorted to an outright personal attack after one response. It's very unflattering. The great thing is it's all right there for everyone to read. Very little room for backtracking.

While I agree with the "little room for backtracking" sentiment of everything I say being out there and ready for anyone to view (that's why I DO it, so there's no escaping my mistakes)... Uh, where did I resort to personal attacks to welsh, exactly? He said something about Pat Buchanan, I replied to that. He listed some source quotes, I replied to that. I don't see where I got personal with him at all. Was it the "I shudder to think what X is to you" part? That wasn't personal at all, at least not as I meant it...

Anyway, above all, I do think it's a little bit disrespectful to speak of me in the third person when I'm right here (yeah, I know, internet forum, technically I'm NEVER present, but you know what I mean... right?) though I do understand it's because you're talking to someone else. Still, it's the sentiment of talking about someone to someone else... that just doesn't sit well with me. Not cool, that's all I'm saying.

To Akratus:

Spoiler

What is that, some lame excuse for a retreat?

You know, I think that the idea that an argument is somehow a fight that you have to win, is just silly.

That's the whole point of getting into an argument; the notion on one party that the other party is wrong. Coming out on top in the argument, in more competitive terms, is "winning", sure. When an opposing perspective clashes with another, is it so that both can eradicate themselves? Hardly. Of course it's all about winning, although if "winning" to you means nothing more than one side saying "you're right I'm wrong" then that's just missing entirely the point of what it means to win. Like I've said before, multiple times, conflict begets enlightenment, and it's attaining that knowledge which you previously lacked that's the true victory. Learning that you made a mistake is a victory, even if that mistake cost you the game. Learning that you were completely oblivious to a notion that someone else presented to you is a victory, even if your previous obliviousness made you look like a fool.

Of course it's "a fight that you have to win". Learning IS winning! When one side actively retreats, neither learns anything. Nobody wins.

Incidentally, because your quoted response followed an earlier response of "no way am I reading all of that"... does that mean you ended up reading it despite yourself? =P Or did you just take that one part to nitpick at?

EDIT:As per your TAS2 review, Toront: Yes, I wholehearted disagree with MUCH of what you say! =D Thing is, since I've already given my 2 cents, commenting on why I disagree with you would largely just be repeating myself. Though I will say this: I COMPLETELY agree with your statement, "I feel like Sony is failing at pulling off a Marvel Studios style universe. Badly." if not necessarily the cynicism it took to get there. While I still see the film as an enjoyable one and one done well, I don't overlook its flaws. I felt that the payoff of the Gwen Stacy death was accomplished well, but I do acknowledge that they ended up shoehorning in Harry Osborn Green Goblin to do it. I also recognize their "cutting room floor" abandoned ideas, which would make anyone wonder "how else could it have come out?" when you find out so many ideas were removed. I also agree that sometimes the namedropping was a bit too token, and not enough meant. I still liked the film, but my greatest qualms with it were its lackluster delivery. Not bombing. Not disappointment. Just that its funny moments were mild and its sad moments were subdued. I felt sadness when Gwen died, but did it compare to ANY sad scene in One Piece, or the Uncle Ben's death in the Raimi films, or a whole host of other examples I'd just be soaking up space to track down and list? NO, NOT REMOTELY. The film was just riding an emotional gradient, and that was my biggest complaint about it.

Though that's not to say the kid at the end didn't piss me off..... God I hated that part, I'll grant you that. XD

 

[Akratus]

That's the whole point of getting into an argument; the notion on one party that the other party is wrong. Coming out on top in the argument, in more competitive terms, is "winning", sure. When an opposing perspective clashes with another, is it so that both can eradicate themselves? Hardly. Of course it's all about winning, although if "winning" to you means nothing more than one side saying "you're right I'm wrong" then that's just missing entirely the point of what it means to win. Like I've said before, multiple times, conflict begets enlightenment, and it's attaining that knowledge which you previously lacked that's the true victory. Learning that you made a mistake is a victory, even if that mistake cost you the game. Learning that you were completely oblivious to a notion that someone else presented to you is a victory, even if your previous obliviousness made you look like a fool.

Of course it's "a fight that you have to win". Learning IS winning! When one side actively retreats, neither learns anything. Nobody wins.

Incidentally, because your quoted response followed an earlier response of "no way am I reading all of that"... does that mean you ended up reading it despite yourself? =P Or did you just take that one part to nitpick at?

Yes, I picked just that part.

It's all about winning, you say? I myself, thought, that it was about making your argument as clear as can be, and then going back and forth to make sure you share your knowledge, give your opinion and possibly try to enlighten the other party with your particular viewpoint.

So, if two people come out of an argument, both saying they learned something from the other, neither backing away from some hitherto long kept belief, who has won?

 

[Walpknut]

Is not so much the CG that is the problem, the problem is their refusal to go out of their designated style. They just keep doing the same movies over and over again, but with decreasing quality.

Eh. I tend to prefer high quality animation, but I understand why they don't do it anymore. Princess and the Frog was better than Frozen, imo. I know that isn't Pixar but still.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some 2D animation, but CG has it's own potential and the like. I would like to see a rebirth of Theatrical 2D animation outside of anime, but I would also like for CG movies to actually experiment visually, you can do a lot with CG too.

 

[Akratus]

3D movies I like:

1. The Incredibles
2. Wall-E
3. Toy Story
4. Rango
(I might have forgotten one or two)

3d animated movies I don't like:

1. Everything else.

 

[Walpknut]

3D movies I like in no particular order:
1. The Lego movie.
2. UP.
3. Wall-E.
4. Toy Story.
5. The How to Train your dragon movies.
6. Kung Fu Panda.
7. Rango.
8. Finding Nemo.
9. Sherk 1 and 2.
And I think that would be the lot of them. I tend to hate Dreamworks movies with a passion, and a lot of Pixar's recent outings have been mediocre at best.

 

[TorontoReign]

@Snap: I'll drop the silly argument topic since it can basically be summed up to conflicting personalities. I've seen dudes get on your ass just for typing up a long post. Not referring to this little debate either. So I can see how you could get pissed. I can also see how others could get pissed too, so there is that. Really it doesn't bother me unless directed at me. Even then I like a good debate. Even if it is over a silly topic about whether Expendables is objectively fun or not!

As for Amazing Spiderman 2. I'll have to go back and read your previous posts on it to see where we disagree specifically, but I will say that I liked the movie. It just doesn't compare to other recent superhero films. Which is really disappointing to a lifelong Spidey fan. I want to get more into that, but I'll have to track down your post. Until next time!

@Walp: I'm right there with you. I just don't like how prevalent they are in the industry. I however do like Dreamworks to a certain extent. Me and my wife love Despicable Me. Can't think of any others off the top of my head.

 

[Walpknut]

Amazing Spiderman 2 was good for me, it has it's issues like every movie, specially with the tonal shift for the ending, but I do beleive that it got way too much bad rap from reviewers that sounded like they weren't even paying attention to the movie. Someone linke the Red Letter media video and they outright ignore entire parts of the movie just so they can dismiss it. Which to me is a very disingenuos way of reviewing anything and with how strong those internet reviewers voices are now it just encourages shitty behaviors on the audience. I mean we are still experiecing the aftermath of the "That guy with the glasses" era. *shudders*.

 

[SnapSlav]

Yes, I picked just that part.

Okay, fair enough... XD

It's all about winning, you say? I myself, thought, that it was about making your argument as clear as can be, and then going back and forth to make sure you share your knowledge, give your opinion and possibly try to enlighten the other party with your particular viewpoint.

So, if two people come out of an argument, both saying they learned something from the other, neither backing away from some hitherto long kept belief, who has won?

Yes, they're one in the same. For example, when I say that I'm into profit trades not for the profit, that doesn't mean I'm not interested in "winning". The process is what excites me, and in that example, it's refining my craft, or taking some small success from previously and applying it to a larger market I hadn't tapped before, and not drowning or failing. It's exhilarating and I can't get enough of it. It's a disappointment when I screw up and lose money, but I take it in stride because I still "win" in the sense that I learned from my mistakes (usually). It's the same with debate. It is not nor should it ever be SINGULARLY about the end-goal of victory, but the process itself that led to said goal. You don't "win" via progressiveness, moving forwards, improvement, learning, etc by being backwards, passive, and retreating from conflict. It's the methodology itself- conducting a conversation where ideas are shared and false assumptions are debunked while new and potentially beneficial thoughts are exchanged and proliferated and one or both or even all parties receive their own enlightenment -which IS the victory. That's why I express disappointment when someone just walks away. It's not that I'm unsatisfied that the race got canceled so I couldn't enjoy the smugness of passing the finish line, it's that the race got canceled and I can't enjoy the race to the finish line... whatever that metaphorical "finish line" may be.

I can see, though, why you wonder about how I can want this but not that, considering how much time and effort I put into expressing that "these things are different", so it's rather unusual for me to be saying "these are the same thing".

As for Amazing Spiderman 2. I'll have to go back and read your previous posts on it to see where we disagree specifically, but I will say that I liked the movie. It just doesn't compare to other recent superhero films. Which is really disappointing to a lifelong Spidey fan. I want to get more into that, but I'll have to track down your post. Until next time!

I've had many different thoughts about the movie that I haven't repeated more than once and spread across multiple posting mediums. I've shared my thoughts on youtube, NMA, game chat, steam chat, skype, and almost always brought up something different. But the running similarity was that I didn't dislike the film. Now, years ago I said the same about FO3, and recently I've said that as time goes on I'm growing to depart further and further from the "do not hate" camp and venturing deeper and deeper into the "hate outright" camp, so that's not to say that with time the same might not happen with TAS2. But for now, I still see it as a good film. Far from the best, but anything BUT bad. Riddled with flaws, alas, but not a stinking pile of shit like some will accuse it. "Some" have dismissed the entire series of films simply because they were being rebooted by corporate decision, and couldn't allow themselves the opportunity to be open-minded with the film and accept the possibility that maybe the people involved with its creation DID care and DID try to represent the source material, and I hated every word "those" people spouted because their deliberate self-shrouding ignorance was evident in every sentence. But I don't like the film because I went in wanting to like it, or because I hated those assholes for hating it and just wanting to spite them, I genuinely liked it. Not loved, alas, but at no point did I feel negatively about it.

I DID find myself pointing out aloud some of the absurdities, sure, in a for-myself personal MST3k rant. God knows the movie had problems (I means seriously, THAT FUCKING KID!!!) and it's always fun to nitpick the shit out of them. Yet at the end of the day, they're nitpicks of a film I enjoyed, felt undeserving of all the negativity surrounding it, and kinda enjoyed further by tearing it apart. Nowadays I'm pretty ruthless towards The Dark Knight Rises (in fact, the entire Nolan DK trilogy) but that doesn't mean I didn't like the film, nor would I tell anyone who (must have been living under a rock in order to have) found themself oblivious to the film that it was a bad movie; it'd come highly recommended from me. BUT, if you're dedicated to the film and mull it over enough times, it presents itself with countless opportunities for serious, critical complaints, and TAS2 is no different.