Best Sci-Fi Tournament - Round 3, Group E

[fernandito]

Note:
Please choose UP TO 2 films to advance to the next round!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Alien_movie_poster.jpg

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/donnie-darko-2001/large_dGcIsUfeatHYqgp9gX6KOcYT427.jpg

http://www.geekpeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dredd-2.jpg

https://clevelandcinemas.com/photos/invasion_of_the_body_snatchers.jpg

http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/Star-Wars-Return-Jedi-VI-Poster_a10501d2.jpeg?region=12%2C9%2C618%2C982&width=480

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Starship_Troopers_-_movie_poster.jpg

[T-Dogz_AK47]

WOW! I got first comment LOL! LOL! LOL! :D

Easy choice for me:

Return of the Jedi
Alien

Now take that shit to the bank! LOL!

[Mattrick]

Alien
Donnie Darko

[Heather19]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Donnie Darko. I'm sure Alien is going to run away with this one.

[DoctorDodge]

Alien and Dredd. Love Donnie Darko though, but yeah. Gotta vote for Dredd.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

WTF! Donnie Darko is leading Return of the Jedi.... :wtf:

Okay, can someone please explain how the fuck Donnie Darko can be better than Return of the Jedi?

[fernandito]

Return of the Jedi isn't really that great, and this is coming from a huge SW fan. Easily the weakest of the trilogy.

Voted for Alien and Starship Troopers.

[DoctorDodge]

I'm sorry, but regarding Return of the Jedi, just gotta have to quote one of my favourite Spaced moments:

"What about the Ewoks? They were rubbish! You don't complain about them!"
"Yeah, but Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks look like...fucking Shaft!"

[Tommy]

Donnie Darko got to a much deeper part of me that Return of the Jedi, Darko still resonates with me while Jedi was just fun and not that memorably, Jedi is much more of a shallow delight in my opinion

[Mattrick]

WTF! Donnie Darko is leading Return of the Jedi.... :wtf:

Okay, can someone please explain how the fuck Donnie Darko can be better than Return of the Jedi?

Because Donnie Darko is awesome and original. AS for Return of the Jedi...I'll let Hurley explain it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaQJ_3Gnpso

[divemaster]

Return of the Jedi isn't really that great, and this is coming from a huge SW fan. Easily the weakest of the trilogy.

Voted for Alien and Starship Troopers.

Ditto this. Same vote.

[mae]

Went with Starship Troopers and Body Snatchers.

[pathoftheturtle]

WTF! Donnie Darko is leading Return of the Jedi.... :wtf:

Okay, can someone please explain how the fuck Donnie Darko can be better than Return of the Jedi?

Because Donnie Darko is awesome and original. AS for Return of the Jedi...I'll let Hurley explain it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaQJ_3Gnpso

Apparently Miles didn't listen well enough; "Lost" didn't end up having the tidiest ending either.

Ewoks is just cover - real reason RotJ is unpopular is because people liked the bad guys.

[frik]

Starship Troopers
Jedi

sk

[fernandito]

Ewoks is just cover - real reason RotJ is unpopular is because people liked the bad guys.
Whaaa? You lost me.

[pathoftheturtle]

Ewoks is just cover - real reason RotJ is unpopular is because people liked the bad guys.
Whaaa? You lost me.I've heard complaints about Boba Fett's death scene on more than one occasion.

[fernandito]

Ah! Gotcha.

You know, I can't ever recall the Fett thing bugging me that much. I mean, he was a very minor character in the grand scheme of things. I think he's just one of those characters that became much more popular than originally intended because of his great character design, and then went on to have his own comics and fan fiction etc., For those people, going back to revisit the films will always be a bitter sweet reminder of how anti climatic his end really is.

[Mattrick]

Ewoks is just cover - real reason RotJ is unpopular is because people liked the bad guys.
Whaaa? You lost me.I've heard complaints about Boba Fett's death scene on more than one occasion.

Boba Fett? Death Scene? He got out that Sarlac to star in The Mandolorian Armour. Jedi just isn't that great. The Ewoks make the fearsome, indomitable Galactic Empire seem like the most inept military of all time, what we should fear we don't because Lucas wanted to whore himself out to merchandising to kids and make some extra coin. It's unpopular because it was like watching Lucas turn tricks for the first time. That and the twin dynamic which obviously wasn't thought of when Luke revelled in that incestuous kiss.

[fernandito]

Plus Death Star No. 2 which just seemed tired at that point. And then it gets rebuild with the EXACT SAME VULNERABLE SPOT AS THE FIRST ONE. Inept military indeed.

[WeDealInLead]

Aaah, stop ruining my childhood.

[pathoftheturtle]

1. Pay attention at least. Come on; when completed, second Death Star would not have been vulnerable. On being tired anyway, you have a point. Real weapons get produced repeatedly, but movies need more novelty.

2. Twins. Ok, a bit lame. But it does fit the line in Empire "There is another." and Leia receiving Luke's telepathic S.O.S. at the end.

3. Watch "Making of the Ewok Adventure" and then tell me again that Lucas didn't sincerely love the damn things; I defy you. He may have been wrong, he may have been the only one, but there it is.

4. Besides, did you say "first time"?! Dude, I already had action figures for every alien with even one second in the cantina. He started looong before, and he didn't have to make them cute for money. An army of worms with different worm costumes would have sold a million.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

It's very good to see that Alien and Return of the Jedi are firmly back in the lead... :clap: :clap:

Indeed, that should be the natural order of things! :thumbsup:

[Mattrick]

.

3. Watch "Making of the Ewok Adventure" and then tell me again that Lucas didn't sincerely love the damn things; I defy you. He may have been wrong, he may have been the only one, but there it is.

Michael Bay loves the hell of Transformers, doesn't mean the movies still aren't four turds in a little row.


4. Besides, did you say "first time"?! Dude, I already had action figures for every alien with even one second in the cantina. He started looong before, and he didn't have to make them cute for money. An army of worms with different worm costumes would have sold a million.

There's a big difference between merchandising and merchandising expressly for kids. Lucus realised the only demographic he really didn't have locked down was the 4-12 year olds so he invented the Ewoks. Why shouldn't he love the Ewoks? They made him shitloads of money and spawned spinoffs. Jar Jar Binks was intended to be Ewok 2.0 but instead took the annoyingness of every Ewok and combined it into one lanky creature that killed Ahmed Best's career before it even got started. Future merchandising is never a reason to make your movies a certain way. I can't see the Cantina aliens having been created for the sole purpose of action figure sales and was more of a let's sell what we can while we can, as opposed to spending 1/4 of a film on furry marketeers.

[fernandito]

Yeah no shit he loved the Ewoks, they helped him make a down payment on that beach house he always wanted :lol:

[pathoftheturtle]

In the first draft, underestimating the Wookiees was what ended the Empire. Lucas just liked them so much that he had to put one in the first movie even if it meant giving them tech knowledge. Reverse the syllables Ee-wook. That's where they came from. That early. And I know that there was already a lock on 4-12 year olds cause I was there. I went to the first movie at, you guessed it, age 4. Was Lucas thinking of marketing when he made it? Maybe not... but it was Lucas himself who launched and built that business immediately afterward. I'm not trying to argue that the sincere-love-of-story part unquestionably redeems the industry-model-directly-traceable to Transformers 4. I'm only saying that drawing the line just after the first two movies is nonsense.

[mae]

So we're not gonna have any of these in the next round: Forbidden Planet, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still... Why the backlash against classic sci-fi? In an all-time tournament!

[T-Dogz_AK47]

So we're not gonna have any of these in the next round: Forbidden Planet, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still... Why the backlash against classic sci-fi? In an all-time tournament!

Well those films do not stand the test of time and with a contemporary viewing, they look very dated and clichéd.

[mae]

I highly disagree, sorry. They're classics because they've withstood the test if time. It's an open question whether some of the contemporary so-called classics will in 50-60 years.

[Merlin1958]

So we're not gonna have any of these in the next round: Forbidden Planet, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still... Why the backlash against classic sci-fi? In an all-time tournament!

Well those films do not stand the test of time and with a contemporary viewing, they look very dated and clichéd.

IMHO that is their charm. Plus if it weren't for them you wouldn't have your contemporary films. JMHO

[fernandito]

So we're not gonna have any of these in the next round: Forbidden Planet, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still... Why the backlash against classic sci-fi? In an all-time tournament!

Well those films do not stand the test of time and with a contemporary viewing, they look very dated and clichéd.

Precisely.

[mae]

So we're not gonna have any of these in the next round: Forbidden Planet, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still... Why the backlash against classic sci-fi? In an all-time tournament!

Well those films do not stand the test of time and with a contemporary viewing, they look very dated and clichéd.

Precisely.

http://i.imgur.com/WKkNdge.gif

[mae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zRGgZQJNmY

[fernandito]

So we're not gonna have any of these in the next round: Forbidden Planet, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still... Why the backlash against classic sci-fi? In an all-time tournament!

Well those films do not stand the test of time and with a contemporary viewing, they look very dated and clichéd.

Precisely.

http://i.imgur.com/WKkNdge.gif

Hahahaha, well done!

[mae]

Cute gifs aside, I must take issue with the notion that classic movies "look very dated". What does that mean? If a film was done in the 1940s or 1950s, in black and white, it was done in the style and technical abilities of that time. So now in 2014 you have to take that into account. And of course the idea that a undisputed classic like The Day the Earth Stood Still somehow does not "stand the test of time" is frankly laughable. It has a 94% critics rating on RT and is rated 7.9 on IMDB. The AFI list of the Top Ten Sci-Fi movies of all time has it at #5, with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the original, of course) at #9: http://www.afi.com/10top10/category.aspx?cat=7

[divemaster]

I thought The Day the Earth Stood Still and Invasion of the Body Snatchers were very good films. I'm pretty sure I voted for them in earlier rounds. I certainly don't consider them "dated." Good movies will never be "dated."

However, for both of these movies, my initial introduction was the original written work. The short story "Farewell to the Master" and of course the Finney novel for Body Snatchers. I had read them several times prior to seeing the movies, so that is what stuck with me the most. Like I said, I enjoyed the movie versions very much, but in this round I had to pass them by.

Having said that, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers. Was the movie as good? No. Not from a character or philospohical standpoint. But the movie just kicked ass, man. The insectoids, the battles--that movie "goes to 11." If that makes me inconsistent (written form vs. movie), so be it.

[pathoftheturtle]

I've got an idea... let's remake The Day the Earth Stood Still with digital graphics and the star of The Matrix! That should be good, right?

[fernandito]

Cute gifs aside, I must take issue with the notion that classic movies "look very dated". What does that mean? If a film was done in the 1940s or 1950s, in black and white, it was done in the style and technical abilities of that time. So now in 2014 you have to take that into account.
That is being taken account though; It looks dated in comparison with cinema today. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is here...



And of course the idea that a undisputed classic like The Day the Earth Stood Still somehow does not "stand the test of time" is frankly laughable. It has a 94% critics rating on RT and is rated 7.9 on IMDB. The AFI list of the Top Ten Sci-Fi movies of all time has it at #5, with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the original, of course) at #9: http://www.afi.com/10top10/category.aspx?cat=7
No two groups - or websites in this case - can agree 100% on what defines "best".

I've noticed that dot com's tend to rank films through nostalgia colored lenses, they give precedence to films that did things first, or were the the inspirational genesis for other films and genres. The trend setters of their times, if you will. It's why films like Citizen Kane and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (both of which I love) almost always feature at the top of their lists even though there are thousands of objectively more 'impressive' films. Sentiment and the love of of the art of cinema and its history plays a huge role.

This conversation could probably be its own thread, in all honesty.



Having said that, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers. Was the movie as good? No. Not from a character or philospohical standpoint. But the movie just kicked ass, man. The insectoids, the battles--that movie "goes to 11." If that makes me inconsistent (written form vs. movie), so be it.

That's why I voted for it too. It has some ludicrously delicious visuals, and some pretty exhilarating fight sequences. I still get chills in that scene where Michael Ironside's character looks over the barricade and sees those thousands of bugs charging up the hill, seconds away from overwhelming the exterior walls. LOVE IT.

[pathoftheturtle]

Well if you're starting a new thread, please realize there are different points to make about classic science fiction than about classic films in general.

[fernandito]

The new thread would be about films in general, not just sci fi.

[pathoftheturtle]

Yes, I noticed you were blaming nostalgia as a general fault in cinephiles, but there was a particular era for science fiction when fear and optimism stood in a certain fertile balance different from where culture is at this point. And even in the case of a later film like 2001... well, technically, 2001 is already long gone, lol.

[mae]

I can't be blamed for nostalgia since the 1950s were well before my time.

[DoctorDodge]

Yes, I noticed you were blaming nostalgia as a general fault in cinephiles, but there was a particular era for science fiction when fear and optimism stood in a certain fertile balance different from where culture is at this point. And even in the case of a later film like 2001... well, technically, 2001 is already long gone, lol.

It still makes me laugh that my favourite comic right now has a title as 'futuristic' as 2000AD. :lol:

[pathoftheturtle]

I can't be blamed for nostalgia since the 1950s were well before my time.

Nostalgia-by-proxy. We've been corrupted by our folks!

[fernandito]

Yes, I noticed you were blaming nostalgia as a general fault in cinemaphiles...

Not "blaming" anything, merely an observation.

[fernandito]

BUMP

Poll is closing tomorrow! Get those votes in, stragglers.

[mae]

A little variety would've been nice, but the semi finals will be Star Wars vs. Alien(s).

The original Alien is a great film, sure. But some bonafide classics have already been eliminated or are about to be.

[Mattrick]

Well those films do not stand the test of time and with a contemporary viewing, they look very dated and clichéd.

These films only look cliche because they came first i.e. everything else borrowed from them. The Day The Earth Stood Still is fantastic and the remake was a blight to mankind. As as for being dated, all films from the 50's etc. look dated. Are you saying fantastic film like Rebecca, All About Eve or The Apartment (Best Pictures winners from 1940, 1950, 1960) are dated, which make them inferior films?

[Mattrick]

Well those films do not stand the test of time and with a contemporary viewing, they look very dated and clichéd.

These films only look cliche because they came first i.e. everything else borrowed from them. The Day The Earth Stood Still is fantastic and the remake was a blight to mankind. As as for being dated, all films from the 50's etc. look dated. Are you saying fantastic film like Rebecca, All About Eve or The Apartment (Best Pictures winners from 1940, 1950, 1960) are dated, which make them inferior films?



http://i.imgur.com/WKkNdge.gif

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-A58_p1I62xg/UybsFmB_eHI/AAAAAAABB6E/XAknpjnb7KE/w506-h380/HYpFZCP.gif

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Well those films do not stand the test of time and with a contemporary viewing, they look very dated and clichéd.

These films only look cliche because they came first i.e. everything else borrowed from them. The Day The Earth Stood Still is fantastic and the remake was a blight to mankind. As as for being dated, all films from the 50's etc. look dated. Are you saying fantastic film like Rebecca, All About Eve or The Apartment (Best Pictures winners from 1940, 1950, 1960) are dated, which make them inferior films?

Those films were great in their own time but their impact diminished as cinema evolved. It's not just the photography or set design that makes these films dated, it's also the style of acting. Can you honestly say that the acting in Rebecca is as good as the acting in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975)? Personally, I think the acting in Rebecca comes across as wooden and stilted when compared to such a film. Or how about comparing the sweeping visual grandeur of Out of Africa (1985) against the simplistic tableau of All About Eve - which of the two has more impact? Or the raw emotion and narrative drive of Braveheart (1995) compared to the lack of such substance in The Apartment - which of those two has the bigger impact?

Best Picture films of the 40's, 50's and 60's just cannot compare to Best Picture films of the 70's, 80's and 90's.

[mae]

That's a very narrow viewpoint on cinema as a whole. Some of the very best films of all time come from that period and that's a universal fact: Citizen Kane, Seven Samurai, 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, Double Idemnity, Rashomon, and I can go on and on.

[Mattrick]

Well those films do not stand the test of time and with a contemporary viewing, they look very dated and clichéd.

These films only look cliche because they came first i.e. everything else borrowed from them. The Day The Earth Stood Still is fantastic and the remake was a blight to mankind. As as for being dated, all films from the 50's etc. look dated. Are you saying fantastic film like Rebecca, All About Eve or The Apartment (Best Pictures winners from 1940, 1950, 1960) are dated, which make them inferior films?

Those films were great in their own time but their impact diminished as cinema evolved. It's not just the photography or set design that makes these films dated, it's also the style of acting. Can you honestly say that the acting in Rebecca is as good as the acting in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975)? Personally, I think the acting in Rebecca comes across as wooden and stilted when compared to such a film. Or how about comparing the sweeping visual grandeur of Out of Africa (1985) against the simplistic tableau of All About Eve - which of the two has more impact? Or the raw emotion and narrative drive of Braveheart (1995) compared to the lack of such substance in The Apartment - which of those two has the bigger impact?

Best Picture films of the 40's, 50's and 60's just cannot compare to Best Picture films of the 70's, 80's and 90's.

Saying Laurence Olivier is wooden and stilted is an insult to film. Rebeccas is one of the most brooding films I've ever seen, and covering some very twisted subject matter for it's time. All About Eve featured some of the best talent of it's time going at each othe. Bette Davis one of the best her generation. Paths of Glory has some the most poignant scenes in all of film, more poignant than Braveheart. Next you'll say Some Like It Hot, one of the best comedies ever, isn't funny. To write off older films because of the stage film was in when they were made is like saying Beethoven is boring because there were no wicked guitar solos or lacked a great beat, or Pride and Prejudice wouldnt feel as dated if the Bennet Sisters could text each other or cave paintings would be cooler if they were computer animated.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

That's a very narrow viewpoint on cinema as a whole. Some of the very best films of all time come from that period and that's a universal fact: Citizen Kane, Seven Samurai, 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, Double Idemnity, Rashomon, and I can go on and on.

There are no universal facts concerning what is and what is not a great film - there is only subjective opinion.

Therefore in my subjective opinion, I thought Casablanca was awful. The acting was appalling and it had some of the worst dialogue ever put to screen. The whole film in my view, just came across as overwhelmingly corny and crass.

As for Citizen Kane, it's probably the most overrated film in the history of cinema. It's a classic example of a film labelled as great purely by reputation alone and is one of those movies people say they enjoy and think is great, purely because of that reputation.

In reality, when you boil down to it - the film is quite pretentious and very poorly structured. It has virtually no characterisation or cohesive structure and moves at such a ridiculously slow pace, it induces extreme boredom. This meant that I couldn't care less about the characters or what happened to them. Indeed, I was so bored with it, I just really couldn't give a rat's ass about 'rosebud' or Charles Foster Kane.

Granted, there were some technical achievements pioneered within the film, but if the story is boring, everything else becomes irrelevant.

Basically, films such as Citizen Kane embody the exact same style vs substance debate that still rages to this very day, encapsulating it just as perfectly as every flashy film that chooses to let the cool new toys and tricks far outweigh any of the other considerations that make up a good movie - aka Avatar or Prometheus to name just two.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Originally Posted by Mattrick
Saying Laurence Olivier is wooden and stilted is an insult to film.

Not when his performance is being compared to that of Jack Nicholson's in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest it's not.

Lawrence Olivier was a great actor, but not all of his performances were golden. He became much better later in life and was a far more accomplished stage actor than on screen. If you truly believe that the acting in Rebecca is better than the acting in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - then you need your head read.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
To write off older films because of the stage film was in when they were made is like saying Beethoven is boring because there were no wicked guitar solos or lacked a great beat, or Pride and Prejudice wouldnt feel as dated if the Bennet Sisters could text each other or cave paintings would be cooler if they were computer animated.

That is a very poor analogy. I never said that I was writing off old films, I am merely pointing out the obvious truth that older films may have been great in their own day, but become outdated as time goes by. Ben-Hur won 11 Oscars (including Best Picture) after it was released in 1959, but how many would it win today?

[Heather19]

I don't think you can really compare it to today. Films are so different now than they were 70 years ago. Just because time has moved on, that doesn't make the films any less powerful. I can understand you saying that Citizen Kane was boring, it's pace is a lot slower, and the story might not appeal to everyone, but it definitely does have a lot of characterization and structure to it. And while the acting back then was different, I don't feel like it's worse or more wooden. Some of our greatest actors came from that period.

I wonder if we should start a new thread, so we can continue this discussion after this poll ends.

[fernandito]

I definitely want to continue this conversation. I will start a thread if no one else does.

[pathoftheturtle]

Can't you just move some of the posts to the Classic Movies thread?

[Still Servant]

Since I recently watched From Here to Eternity, I think I may have something to add to the conversation.

First I will say that I really enjoyed From Here to Eternity. It's easy to see why it's considered a classic. That being said, the film is pretty basic in its storytelling. Essentially, the story consists of Burt Lancaster who falls in love with his superior officer's wife. Then there is Montgomery Clift who falls in love with a local "companion". Let's be honest, she's basically a prostitute, but they would never say that back then. The whole film flips back and forth between these two characters. There are some minor side storylines for each character as well. Clift is being recruited to box for his unit, but is dead set against it. Lancaster is struggling with the idea of moving up in rank. Pretty basic in the grand scheme of things.

In the third act of the film, finally something big happens. Clift's character murders Ernest Borgnine's character because Borgnine abused Sinatra's character while he was in jail causing him to escape and then pass away. If this film was made today, that would have happened in the first act and the rest of the film would have dealt with Clift's character dealing with the fall out.

For me, the main theme of From Here to Eternity is the small stuff and the fact it's just people living their lives. We are basically seeing people go about their lives before the world changed forever. We see men and women falling in love, friends bonding over drinks and playing music. The events of Pearl Harbor seemed like an impossibility.

The charms of a film like From Here to Eternity comes from the big Hollywood cast and the "Old Hollywood" feel. That might not be enough for a lot of people, especially if you're used to more contemporary films. I for one can't put Eternity anywhere near some of the more "new age" films that have come out in the last 30 or 40 years.

It's been said before, but movies just aren't made like that anymore. The pacing is different, the structure is different, the writing is different and the acting is different. It has nothing to do with technological advancements or anything like that. It's quite simply the philosophy of filmmaking that has changed.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

I definitely want to continue this conversation. I will start a thread if no one else does.

How about doing a few 1 vs 1 death match style polls to see if old classic films can hold their own against modern classics?

To make things fair, I'm thinking that the first death match could be Casablanca vs Schindler's List.

Both films were set during World War II; both were filmed in black & white; both won the Academy Award for Best Film & Best Director and both are considered to be one of the greatest films ever made. Bring it on!

[mae]

Hands down, Casablanca. One of the best films ever vs. one of the best of the 1990s.

[pathoftheturtle]

If only we could take some new films and the internet back in time to poll fresh subjects.

[Jean]

If you truly believe that the acting in Rebecca is better than the acting in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - then you need your head read.

how do you define "better" or "worse" in acting? Seems like you mean "more realistic". But it's only one of the many colors on the palette. The acting in Rebecca is better, in fact, it is ideal, for a film like Rebecca. The acting in Black Adder is ideal for Black Adder, without being realistic for a moment.

I agree that Mattrick's analogy is not perfect, so I'll offer another: it's like accusing Marc Chagall of not using the same chiaroscuro as Leonardo da Vinci.

[fernandito]

Can't you just move some of the posts to the Classic Movies thread?

What I'll probably do is move some of the posts onto a new thread and then eventually merge that thread with the Classics one.

[DoctorDodge]

If you truly believe that the acting in Rebecca is better than the acting in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - then you need your head read.

how do you define "better" or "worse" in acting? Seems like you mean "more realistic". But it's only one of the many colors on the palette. The acting in Rebecca is better, in fact, it is ideal, for a film like Rebecca. The acting in Black Adder is ideal for Black Adder, without being realistic for a moment.

I agree that Mattrick's analogy is not perfect, so I'll offer another: it's like accusing Marc Chagall of not using the same chiaroscuro as Leonardo da Vinci.

Props for the Black Adder mention, Jean. :thumbsup: Which reminds me: a rewatch of Goes Forth is in order soon, I think.

[Mattrick]

That's a very narrow viewpoint on cinema as a whole. Some of the very best films of all time come from that period and that's a universal fact: Citizen Kane, Seven Samurai, 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, Double Idemnity, Rashomon, and I can go on and on.

There are no universal facts concerning what is and what is not a great film - there is only subjective opinion.

Therefore in my subjective opinion, I thought Casablanca was awful. The acting was appalling and it had some of the worst dialogue ever put to screen. The whole film in my view, just came across as overwhelmingly corny and crass.

As for Citizen Kane, it's probably the most overrated film in the history of cinema. It's a classic example of a film labelled as great purely by reputation alone and is one of those movies people say they enjoy and think is great, purely because of that reputation.

In reality, when you boil down to it - the film is quite pretentious and very poorly structured. It has virtually no characterisation or cohesive structure and moves at such a ridiculously slow pace, it induces extreme boredom. This meant that I couldn't care less about the characters or what happened to them. Indeed, I was so bored with it, I just really couldn't give a rat's ass about 'rosebud' or Charles Foster Kane.

Granted, there were some technical achievements pioneered within the film, but if the story is boring, everything else becomes irrelevant.

Basically, films such as Citizen Kane embody the exact same style vs substance debate that still rages to this very day, encapsulating it just as perfectly as every flashy film that chooses to let the cool new toys and tricks far outweigh any of the other considerations that make up a good movie - aka Avatar or Prometheus to name just two.

You must have thought Prometheus kicked the shit out of Alien. I just watched Alien, it's so dated looking! Am I supposed to believe they can travel through space when their computers only have green text and their main control port looks like a padded cell decorated with light bright? And The Alien was obviously a guy in a suit. I actually am going to watch Citizen Kane very soon just because of what you said about it. Chances are I will completely disagree with you, like I do with Casablanca and every other movie pre-1970.

I don't know what you mean by style vs substance in old movies; a lot of old movies excell in both, like as I previously mentioned, Rebecca. There is more to style than special effects...a lot more. If style was special effects Zack Snyder would be the most stylistic filmmaker of all time, when that is probably Kubrick (or at very least he's right near the top).

[T-Dogz_AK47]

You must have thought Prometheus kicked the shit out of Alien. I just watched Alien, it's so dated looking! Am I supposed to believe they can travel through space when their computers only have green text and their main control port looks like a padded cell decorated with light bright? And The Alien was obviously a guy in a suit. I actually am going to watch Citizen Kane very soon just because of what you said about it. Chances are I will completely disagree with you, like I do with Casablanca and every other movie pre-1970.

I don't know what you mean by style vs substance in old movies; a lot of old movies excell in both, like as I previously mentioned, Rebecca. There is more to style than special effects...a lot more. If style was special effects Zack Snyder would be the most stylistic filmmaker of all time, when that is probably Kubrick (or at very least he's right near the top).

If you thought I liked Prometheus, then you didn't read my post properly. Prometheus was shit, as was Avatar - whilst Alien is superb. If you think I hate all films that are older purely because of the special effects that are available today, then you are gravely mistaken. :nope:

I don't recall special effects being at the forefront of either One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest or Schindler's List, both of which I championed during earlier posts - but of course those films didn't suit your argument, so you carefully fudged around mentioning those two. :rolleyes:

As for Citizen Kane, I bet you're going to force yourself to enjoy it, just so you can come back here to say it's great, even though it bored you shitless! LOL! LOL! :lol:

I will say this though. If you truly loved old classic movies as much as you say you do, you would have watched Citizen Kane already. :evil:

[Mattrick]

If you thought I liked Prometheus, then you didn't read my post properly. Prometheus was shit, as was Avatar - whilst Alien is superb. If you think I hate all films that are older purely because of the special effects that are available today, then you are gravely mistaken. :nope:

Yet you phrased it that Prometheus and Avatar were comparable to Citizen Kane, good or bad, they are incomparable.


I don't recall special effects being at the forefront of either One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest or Schindler's List, both of which I championed during earlier posts - but of course those films didn't suit your argument, so you carefully fudged around mentioning those two. :rolleyes:

My argument was older science fiction that looks dated is inferior to newer science fiction, which itself will look just as dated 30 years from now. As for Cuckoos Nest having better acting than Rebecca, they are very different films. Saying the acting was more realistic because they played insane people who acted really crazy, doesn't make much sense. Are you around crazy people often? What experiences have you had to determine it's realistic acting? Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time. To say he's wooden because 'he wasn't flopping around on screen, screaming his head off in a straight jacket like Nicholson from Cuckoo's Nest' is just a horrible comparison, unless you think good acting has to be like Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest.


As for Citizen Kane, I bet you're going to force yourself to enjoy it, just so you can come back here to say it's great, even though it bored you shitless! LOL! LOL! :lol:

I will say this though. If you truly loved old classic movies as much as you say you do, you would have watched Citizen Kane already. :evil:

No, I genuinely enjoy movies that are very slow, methodical, and focus on characterisation and dialogue. Not everyone gets bored shitless by these things like you get bored shitless. Some of my favourite movies of all time is almost nothing but dialogue and some of my favourite movies barely even have a plot, like Another Year, which you would probably also think has wooden acting and is boring as shit besides being one of the best movies hardly anyone has seen. I am sure I will like Citizen Kane if it is a good movie. There are some very beloved movies I wasn't a big fan of such as when I recently watch Pan's Labryth and thought it was just okay, and I had a long discussion over how overrated Goodfellas is on this site before. I don't think movie are good and force myself to like them to fit in with other people's tastes: I like what I like. And as for not watching Citizen Kane yet, I've had it for three years. Like I just told Fernando in a different thread, I like to let things marinate.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Originally Posted by Mattrick
My argument was older science fiction that looks dated is inferior to newer science fiction, which itself will look just as dated 30 years from now. As for Cuckoos Nest having better acting than Rebecca, they are very different films. Saying the acting was more realistic because they played insane people who acted really crazy, doesn't make much sense. Are you around crazy people often? What experiences have you had to determine it's realistic acting? Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time. To say he's wooden because 'he wasn't flopping around on screen, screaming his head off in a straight jacket like Nicholson from Cuckoo's Nest' is just a horrible comparison, unless you think good acting has to be like Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest.


Have you even watched One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest? Or is that just another movie you have left to "marinate"? First off, Jack Nicholson doesn't scream his head off in a straight jacket anywhere in the movie, nor does he just "flop around". The fact that you would post such a comment just shows that you are completely ignorant about the film. I suggest you actually watch the movie before spouting such opinionated crap.

Secondly, your comment that "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time" is based on what exactly? I bet you haven't even seen two of his movies, if any at all! You spout such opinionated nonsense and act as if your some infallible movie guru about classic films, yet you haven't even watched any of the truly classic films to make such an argument. You clearly haven't watched One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and you already admit to having not watched Citizen Kane, Blade Runner, 2001 A Space Odyssey or Apocalypse Now.

Judging by your posts, I personally think you have just read a few Roger Ebert reviews and are trying to pass his opinions off as your own in order to sound like an intellectual, without actually seeing any of these films.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
Some of my favourite movies of all time is almost nothing but dialogue and some of my favourite movies barely even have a plot, like Another Year, which you would probably also think has wooden acting and is boring as shit besides being one of the best movies hardly anyone has seen.

Now you're just being pretentious.

[Merlin1958]

Originally Posted by Mattrick
My argument was older science fiction that looks dated is inferior to newer science fiction, which itself will look just as dated 30 years from now. As for Cuckoos Nest having better acting than Rebecca, they are very different films. Saying the acting was more realistic because they played insane people who acted really crazy, doesn't make much sense. Are you around crazy people often? What experiences have you had to determine it's realistic acting? Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time. To say he's wooden because 'he wasn't flopping around on screen, screaming his head off in a straight jacket like Nicholson from Cuckoo's Nest' is just a horrible comparison, unless you think good acting has to be like Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest.


Have you even watched One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest? Or is that just another movie you have left to "marinate"? First off, Jack Nicholson doesn't scream his head off in a straight jacket anywhere in the movie, nor does he just "flop around". The fact that you would post such a comment just shows that you are completely ignorant about the film. I suggest you actually watch the movie before spouting such opinionated crap.

Secondly, your comment that "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time" is based on what exactly? I bet you haven't even seen two of his movies, if any at all! You spout such opinionated nonsense and act as if your some infallible movie guru about classic films, yet you haven't even watched any of the truly classic films to make such an argument. You clearly haven't watched One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and you already admit to having not watched Citizen Kane, Blade Runner, 2001 A Space Odyssey or Apocalypse Now.

Judging by your posts, I personally think you have just read a few Roger Ebert reviews and are trying to pass his opinions off as your own in order to sound like an intellectual, without actually seeing any of these films.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugpg8XruhVk

[Mattrick]

Have you even watched One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest? Or is that just another movie you have left to "marinate"? First off, Jack Nicholson doesn't scream his head off in a straight jacket anywhere in the movie, nor does he just "flop around". The fact that you would post such a comment just shows that you are completely ignorant about the film. I suggest you actually watch the movie before spouting such opinionated crap.

I saw it for the first time when I was ten. Seen it a few times since then. I think in terms of Milos Forman's films I like Amadeus more. So no, I am not completely ignorant about the film (seen it a few times in my life), the director (Milos Forman is one of my favourite filmmakers) or Jack Nicholson (he's my favourite of all time).


Secondly, your comment that "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time" is based on what exactly?
I bet you haven't even seen two of his movies, if any at all!

Let me get this straight. I say: "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time", and then you say, "is based on what exactly?"; to answer that here is my quote again, with the part of my quote that answers the question you just asked: "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time" My uncle raves about Olivier. One of my best friends Will RAVES about Olivier. The Academy raved about Olivier (13 nominations...he must suck!). A LOT of people rave about him. And then you insinuate I probably haven't seen any of his films after going on about how great Rebecca is....great job! I am pretty sure Rebecca is the only film I've seen him in but he was goddamn fantastic and I thought 'damn, no wonder why people talk about how great of an actor this guy is' while watching Rebecca.



You spout such opinionated nonsense and act as if your some infallible movie guru about classic films, yet you haven't even watched any of the truly classic films to make such an argument. You clearly haven't watched One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and you already admit to having not watched Citizen Kane, Blade Runner, 2001 A Space Odyssey or Apocalypse Now.

Sure I haven't watched those but I've watch a lot of other classics...so what's the difference? I chose to watch more obscure classics so that makes me some kind pariah? I'm sorry I chose to watch Kubricks Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove and The Killing before I watched 2001. I've saving 2001 to be the last Kubrick I see...I suppose that strips away all my credibility. As for Apocalypse now, I haven't seen Apocalypse now but I've watched Coppola's The Conversation five times....have you seen it once? And as for Blade Runner, I've seen it but it was in high school in a terrible environment like 12 years ago and I was late to class and missed the first half hour and remember very little of the rest.


Judging by your posts, I personally think you have just read a few Roger Ebert reviews and are trying to pass his opinions off as your own in order to sound like an intellectual, without actually seeing any of these films.

http://cdn8.keeptalkinggreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tin-foil-hat.jpg



Originally Posted by Mattrick
Some of my favourite movies of all time is almost nothing but dialogue and some of my favourite movies barely even have a plot, like Another Year, which you would probably also think has wooden acting and is boring as shit besides being one of the best movies hardly anyone has seen.


Now you're just being pretentious.

No, I'm being truthful. Most of my favourite movies are character pieces and aren't very plot heavy. Another Year is a film about a married couple and a year in their life. There is no real beginning or end to the movie. The story is told entirely through dialogue and acting since there is no real linear plot for the characters to follow. The film consists of people sitting around talking with each other. It is my favourite film of the decade so far.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i81cxbYNHks

[fernandito]

Judging by your posts, I personally think you have just read a few Roger Ebert reviews and are trying to pass his opinions off as your own in order to sound like an intellectual, without actually seeing any of these films.

Nah, I've known Matt for a long time, and we've had many interesting conversations about films throughout the years, he's no phony. We just have a way of stating our opinions in a very matter-of-fact because we're very, uh... vehement in our views.

Heated debate is par for the course in tournaments like these and I personally enjoy seeing everyone express themselves, no matter how effusively. I think we've been doing a good job about doing that and not resorting to personal attacks. Let's keep it that way. Thanks guys.

[DoctorDodge]

Ok, now let's try and get things back on topic:

If a bear and a shark got into a fight, who would win?

[Ricky]

That depends, is the fight on land or sea?

[DoctorDodge]

Knowing that each can be successful in its own completely different way: that's exactly the right attitude to have in this tournament, Ricky!

(And for the record, that was exactly the same question my mum asked, too.)

EDIT: and in answer to your question, neither: it's in space, with fitted animal astronaut suits that still somehow allow each animal to use its tooth and claws.

[Ricky]

Space, you say! Well, that changes things. :orely:

Okay, well, due to the physical bodies of both sharks and bears, I would say that the shark would win since its fins would allow it to better acclimate to and survive in a zero gravity environment (movie idea: Space Sharks). A bear's strength lies in its formidable body, strength, and claws BUT due to the lack of gravity, its force would be lessened. Even if both animals were just floating through space, relying on pure chance to attack each other, the shark would have the advantage since it could just open its mouth and glide towards the face of the bear.

This needs its own thread. :lol:

[DoctorDodge]

Space, you say! Well, that changes things. :orely:

Okay, well, due to the physical bodies of both sharks and bears, I would say that the shark would win since its fins would allow it to better acclimate to and survive in a zero gravity environment (movie idea: Space Sharks). A bear's strength lies in its formidable body, strength, and claws BUT due to the lack of gravity, its force would be lessened. Even if both animals were just floating through space, relying on pure chance to attack each other, the shark would have the advantage since it could just open its mouth and glide towards the face of the bear.

This needs its own thread. :lol:

Ah, a well thought through answer.

And you're right, this totally needs its own thread, but I can imagine discussion of shit like this getting as ridiculously heated as it has in the sci-fi tournament...

...yeah, this definitely needs its own thread now. :lol:

[Mattrick]

Attack the Block proved Space Monkey's are something to be feared.

[DoctorDodge]

Shit, I still need to watch Attack the Block. And dammit, now we've got space monkeys involved. This conversation is rapidly turning into a 2000AD story!

[Mattrick]

According to South Park, Orcas (and I'm assuming other whales) fail in space http://i.imgur.com/qLW0W.png

[Ricky]

And you're right, this totally needs its own thread, but I can imagine discussion of shit like this getting as ridiculously heated as it has in the sci-fi tournament...

Yes! :lol:

[Heather19]

Space, you say! Well, that changes things. :orely:

Okay, well, due to the physical bodies of both sharks and bears, I would say that the shark would win since its fins would allow it to better acclimate to and survive in a zero gravity environment (movie idea: Space Sharks). A bear's strength lies in its formidable body, strength, and claws BUT due to the lack of gravity, its force would be lessened. Even if both animals were just floating through space, relying on pure chance to attack each other, the shark would have the advantage since it could just open its mouth and glide towards the face of the bear.

This needs its own thread. :lol:

:rofl:

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Originally Posted by Mattrick
Yet you phrased it that Prometheus and Avatar were comparable to Citizen Kane, good or bad, they are incomparable.

You haven't even watched Citizen Kane, so how the fuck can you say that those films are incomparable to it? This is just another example of you forcing opinionated shit down people's throats when you know absolutely nothing about the film you are preaching about.


Originally Posted by T-Dogz_AK47
Have you even watched One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest? Or is that just another movie you have left to "marinate"? First off, Jack Nicholson doesn't scream his head off in a straight jacket anywhere in the movie, nor does he just "flop around". The fact that you would post such a comment just shows that you are completely ignorant about the film. I suggest you actually watch the movie before spouting such opinionated crap.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
I saw it for the first time when I was ten. Seen it a few times since then. I think in terms of Milos Forman's films I like Amadeus more. So no, I am not completely ignorant about the film

So you watched an 18 certificate film at the age of 10 (thus being too young to fully understand or appreciate it) and a few times since. When since exactly? Last week? Last month? Last year? Or when you were 12? Considering that you earlier stated that Jack Nicholson spent his time in the movie "flopping around on screen, screaming his head off in a straight jacket", I highly doubt you have seen it properly at all. Even if you did watch it as a kid, you obviously didn't have a clue as to what was going on in the movie - because if you had, you wouldn't have spouted such utter shit in your post.


Originally Posted by T-Dogz_AK47
your comment that "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time" is based on what exactly? I bet you haven't even seen two of his movies, if any at all!


Originally Posted by Mattrick
I am pretty sure Rebecca is the only film I've seen him in but he was goddamn fantastic

Just as I predicted. Laurence Olivier starred in over 60 movies throughout his career and yet you have only watched ONE of them, but act as if you know everything about his acting style and ability.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
Let me get this straight. I say: "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time", and then you say, "is based on what exactly?"; to answer that here is my quote again, with the part of my quote that answers the question you just asked: "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time" My uncle raves about Olivier. One of my best friends Will RAVES about Olivier. The Academy raved about Olivier (13 nominations...he must suck!). A LOT of people rave about him.

So your argument concerning Laurence Olivier's acting skills is based on what other people have told you and what you have probably read in a Roger Ebert review? Wow! I guess that makes you quite the expert then? LOL! LOL!


Originally Posted by Mattrick
As for Apocalypse now, I haven't seen Apocalypse now but I've watched Coppola's The Conversation five times....have you seen it once?

Yes I have seen The Conversation. In fact I have seen it nearly a dozen times. Gene Hackman is one of my favourite actors.

Let me give you a tip. I have been watching movies before you were even born, so don't bother trying to be a smart ass about what movies I may or may not have watched.


Now go home and get your fucking shinebox!!! :shoot:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pQ6fd6iO_c

[Mattrick]

Originally Posted by Mattrick
Yet you phrased it that Prometheus and Avatar were comparable to Citizen Kane, good or bad, they are incomparable.

You haven't even watched Citizen Kane, so how the fuck can you say that those films are incomparable to it? This is just another example of you forcing opinionated shit down people's throats when you know absolutely nothing about the film you are preaching about.

They are comparable, then? Prometheus is about humans going across space trying to discover the origins of mankind, Avatar is about a soldier infiltrating an alien species using an avatar identity; Citizen Kane is about a wealthy newspaper publisher based on a real wealthy newspaper publisher named William Hearst (who was none to happy and tried to get the film outright banned): now, I haven't seen Citizen Kane so I guess I must not know about the alien planets and alien species and extended action sequences it has, which must be why they are so comparable.



Originally Posted by T-Dogz_AK47
Have you even watched One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest? Or is that just another movie you have left to "marinate"? First off, Jack Nicholson doesn't scream his head off in a straight jacket anywhere in the movie, nor does he just "flop around". The fact that you would post such a comment just shows that you are completely ignorant about the film. I suggest you actually watch the movie before spouting such opinionated crap.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
I saw it for the first time when I was ten. Seen it a few times since then. I think in terms of Milos Forman's films I like Amadeus more. So no, I am not completely ignorant about the film

So you watched an 18 certificate film at the age of 10 (thus being too young to fully understand or appreciate it) and a few times since. When since exactly? Last week? Last month? Last year? Or when you were 12? Considering that you earlier stated that Jack Nicholson spent his time in the movie "flopping around on screen, screaming his head off in a straight jacket", I highly doubt you have seen it properly at all. Even if you did watch it as a kid, you obviously didn't have a clue as to what was going on in the movie - because if you had, you wouldn't have spouted such utter shit in your post.

Sigh, obviously you don't understand the concept of hyperbole. I was drawing conclusions over your claims of 'realistic acting' and citing Cuckoo's Nest as an example and Nicholsons very kinetic performance in it, compared the very stoic, brooding performance of Olivier in Rebecca so yes, by saying he was flopping around in a straight jacket I was making a swooping generalisation of an insane person in an insitution because it starkly contrasts Olivier performance in Rebecca...I suppose some people just can't perceive wit. The last time I watched Cuckoo's Nest was about four or five years ago, I've also read the book. I don't own it so it's been a when I can kind of watch. And yes, I haven't seen it properly. And yes, I understood what was happening when I was a kid. I was a child genius who was very grown up and was thus allowed to watch a film like Schindler's List when I was seven (which I chose to watch several more times as a kid, because it was so good).


Originally Posted by T-Dogz_AK47
your comment that "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time" is based on what exactly? I bet you haven't even seen two of his movies, if any at all!


Originally Posted by Mattrick
I am pretty sure Rebecca is the only film I've seen him in but he was goddamn fantastic

Just as I predicted. Laurence Olivier starred in over 60 movies throughout his career and yet you have only watched ONE of them, but act as if you know everything about his acting style and ability.[/quote]

I never claimed I knew everything about his acting style or ability: you did. And technically, looking at his filmography, I've watched Spartacus and Marathon Man in addition to Rebecca, which means since you bet I haven't even seen two of his roles, when I've seen three, means you are wrong again.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
Let me get this straight. I say: "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time", and then you say, "is based on what exactly?"; to answer that here is my quote again, with the part of my quote that answers the question you just asked: "Laurence Olivier is considered by many people to be one of, if the not the greatest, actor of all time" My uncle raves about Olivier. One of my best friends Will RAVES about Olivier. The Academy raved about Olivier (13 nominations...he must suck!). A LOT of people rave about him.


So your argument concerning Laurence Olivier's acting skills is based on what other people have told you and what you have probably read in a Roger Ebert review? Wow! I guess that makes you quite the expert then? LOL! LOL!

I never said I was an expert on Olivier: again, you did. All I did was cite PUBLIC OPINION which is therefore NOT MY OPINION. An analogy I can render is one we've discussed; Citizen Kane was at the top o the AFI film list forever until Vertigo (which I've seen) usurped it in 2012, now, if I were to say "Citizen Kane is considered by many people to be one of, if not the greatest, film ever made", does this mean I think I am an expert because I haven't seen it? No, I'm citing PUBLIC OPINION. Now if I said of said 'Laurence Olivier is the greatest actor of all time' or 'I think Olivier is the greatest actor of all time' you would have a case, but no, I clearly stated that opinion was not my opinion but PUBLIC OPINION, which it is.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
As for Apocalypse now, I haven't seen Apocalypse now but I've watched Coppola's The Conversation five times....have you seen it once?

Yes I have seen The Conversation. In fact I have seen it nearly a dozen times. Gene Hackman is one of my favourite actors.

Let me give you a tip. I have been watching movies before you were even born, so don't bother trying to be a smart ass about what movies I may or may not have watched.[/quote]

Congratulations on being older than me, that must have taken a lot of work. If you don't want me to be a smart ass about what movies I may or may not have watched, don't be a smart ass to me about what movies I may or may not have watched. Unless you're one of those, 'do as I say not do as I do' kind of people.

[Jean]

If you truly believe that the acting in Rebecca is better than the acting in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - then you need your head read.

how do you define "better" or "worse" in acting? Seems like you mean "more realistic". But it's only one of the many colors on the palette. The acting in Rebecca is better, in fact, it is ideal, for a film like Rebecca. The acting in Black Adder is ideal for Black Adder, without being realistic for a moment.

I agree that Mattrick's analogy is not perfect, so I'll offer another: it's like accusing Marc Chagall of not using the same chiaroscuro as Leonardo da Vinci.

Props for the Black Adder mention, Jean. :thumbsup: Which reminds me: a rewatch of Goes Forth is in order soon, I think.

Goes Forth is my favorite!

[DoctorDodge]

Mine too. And that ending is still so powerful. "Who'd notice a madman around here?"

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Originally Posted by Mattrick
They are comparable, then? Prometheus is about humans going across space trying to discover the origins of mankind, Avatar is about a soldier infiltrating an alien species using an avatar identity; Citizen Kane is about a wealthy newspaper publisher based on a real wealthy newspaper publisher named William Hearst (who was none to happy and tried to get the film outright banned): now, I haven't seen Citizen Kane so I guess I must not know about the alien planets and alien species and extended action sequences it has, which must be why they are so comparable.


Posting such utter bollocks is just making you sound even more ignorant of the subject in question. If you had bothered to read my earlier post properly, instead of just flying off on some tangent about aliens and shit, you would have realised that I was referring to the fact that Citizen Kane favoured aesthetic photography and technical achievement (style) over narrative drive and storytelling (substance).

As Avatar and Prometheus were both criticised for sacrificing storytelling over visual effects and photography, both films can therefore be deemed comparable to Citizen Kane in terms of the on-going 'style vs substance' debate that continues to this very day.

Here look, I have even re-posted an excerpt from my earlier post for you....


Originally Posted by T-Dogz_AK47
Granted, there were some technical achievements pioneered within the film, but if the story is boring, everything else becomes irrelevant.

Basically, films such as Citizen Kane embody the exact same style vs substance debate that still rages to this very day, encapsulating it just as perfectly as every flashy film that chooses to let the cool new toys and tricks far outweigh any of the other considerations that make up a good movie - aka Avatar or Prometheus to name just two.

Maybe if you actually watched Citizen Kane instead of posting smart ass comments and forcing ill-informed opinions down people's throats, you might be able to add something that is constructive to the conversation.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
Sigh, obviously you don't understand the concept of hyperbole.

I do understand the concept of hyperbole, but I also understand and recognise when someone is talking out of their ass on a subject they know very little about.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
The last time I watched Cuckoo's Nest was about four or five years ago, I've also read the book. I don't own it so it's been a when I can kind of watch. And yes, I haven't seen it properly.

My point exactly. You have just confirmed what was so obviously apparent.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
I was a child genius

FFS! LOL!


Originally Posted by Mattrick
And technically, looking at his filmography, I've watched Spartacus and Marathon Man in addition to Rebecca, which means since you bet I haven't even seen two of his roles, when I've seen three, means you are wrong again.

Wow! You've (maybe) watched 3 films starring Laurence Olivier. I'm impressed. No really, I am! LOL!

So what are you looking for here exactly? A medal? Personally, I like the way you suddenly pulled these two films from out of your ass when you earlier said "I am pretty sure Rebecca is the only film I've seen him in." Both Spartacus and Marathon Man are both very memorable films, so it seems very odd that you would forget that you watched them when posting that earlier comment.

I tell you what, if you can post a review of either Spartacus or Marathon Man on this forum, which include some personal insights into the movie and not something ripped off of the internet or from an old Roger Ebert review, I will gladly accept that you have watched and understood them. How's that?

However, I have watched both Spartacus and Marathon Man myself several times, so be aware that I will know if you attempt to rip something off from the internet.


Originally Posted by Mattrick
All I did was cite PUBLIC OPINION which is therefore NOT MY OPINION. An analogy I can render is one we've discussed; Citizen Kane was at the top o the AFI film list forever until Vertigo (which I've seen) usurped it in 2012, now, if I were to say "Citizen Kane is considered by many people to be one of, if not the greatest, film ever made", does this mean I think I am an expert because I haven't seen it? No, I'm citing PUBLIC OPINION. Now if I said of said 'Laurence Olivier is the greatest actor of all time' or 'I think Olivier is the greatest actor of all time' you would have a case, but no, I clearly stated that opinion was not my opinion but PUBLIC OPINION, which it is.


Again, my point exactly. Instead of having to rely on other people's opinion to make your point, why don't you actually watch some of these movies so you can develop your own original ideas?

You would certainly gain more respect if your posts weren't so vehemently opinionated on subjects you know nothing or very little about. Consistently relying on public opinion, what friends have told you or old Roger Ebert reviews to put your arguments across, only goes to highlight your lack of personal insight.

I am not going to continue to argue with you Mattrick, because quite frankly, I am bored with the situation and I have better things to do with my time. Goodbye and good luck!

[Mattrick]

You should use your time trying to find a clue. You know you've lost and your posts have that 'nails digging into a wooden floor' kind of vibe. You're the only one who thinks I'm some kind of cinema phony while a lot of the regular posters have known me for close to a decade and know I'm not. Good luck with your inane witch hunt! I'd go through your post and reply to each part but that would be as pointless as that wall's attempt to hold in Chief.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxYA6duF-9E

[DoctorDodge]

Was that a tv spot for Stallone's Judge Dredd movie? ;)

[Jean]

<...>

Again, my point exactly. Instead of having to rely on other people's opinion to make your point, why don't you actually watch some of these movies so you can develop your own original ideas?

You would certainly gain more respect if your posts weren't so vehemently opinionated on subjects you know nothing or very little about. Consistently relying on public opinion, what friends have told you or old Roger Ebert reviews to put your arguments across, only goes to highlight your lack of personal insight.
Are you sure you're talking about Mattrick here?... Sincerely, I would never have guessed.