BMCOAT - Round 2, Group C

[fernandito]

Ed Bloom (Big Fish)
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l416/feverishparade/edbloom.jpg

Neo (The Matrix trilogy)
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l416/feverishparade/neo.jpg

Mr. Pink (Reservoir Dogs)
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l416/feverishparade/mrpink.jpg

Vito Corleone (The Godfather)
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l416/feverishparade/vitocorleone.jpg

Clark Griswold (National Lampoon films)
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l416/feverishparade/clark_griswold_vacation.jpg

Raymond Babbitt (Rain Man)
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l416/feverishparade/raymondbabbitt.jpg

Red (The Shawshank Redemption)
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l416/feverishparade/redshawshank.jpg

Police Chief Martin Brody (Jaws)
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l416/feverishparade/martinbrody.jpg

[fernandito]

Some birds just aren't meant to be caged ... their feathers are too bright.

[Girlystevedave]

Although I loved Ed Bloom, I had to go with Clark Griswold.

[Jean]

Red

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Clark

[Melike]

Mr. Pink.

[Odetta]

I don't tip

[sarajean]

i can NOT believe neo is in the lead here.

<_<

[IWasSentWest]

i know kung-fu

[cozener]

i can NOT believe neo is in the lead here.

<_< Appalling, isn't it?


I voted to keep my friends close but my enemies closer. :)

[Woofer]

i can NOT believe neo is in the lead here.

<_< Appalling, isn't it?


I voted to keep my friends close but my enemies closer. :)

Crap. I'm going to have to vote against instead of for, aren't I?

[cozener]

Someone has to save this thing from Neo!

[fernandito]

Someone has to save this thing from the Savior! Oh, what a delicious piece of irony! :lol:

Vito is only one vote away ... :)

[sarajean]

Someone has to save this thing from the Savior! Oh, what a delicious piece of irony! :lol:

Vito is only one vote away ... :)

i gave him my vote, hoping someone else would do the same so that we can make sure that neo doesn't continue on.

i notice that no one has openly admitted to voting for him. :orely:

[Woofer]

Someone has to save this thing from the Savior! Oh, what a delicious piece of irony! :lol:

Vito is only one vote away ... :)

i gave him my vote, hoping someone else would do the same so that we can make sure that neo doesn't continue on.

i notice that no one has openly admitted to voting for him. :orely:

I'm following sj's lead on this one.

[Heather19]

"This is the world's smallest violin playing just for the waitresses"

[Sam]

I was the FIRST to vote for Vito Corleone in this round.

[rosie real]

well it was a hard decision between the godfather and mr. pink but i had to go with the godfather. cause, you know, he made me an offer i couldn't refuse. . .

[Sam]

How do you think I felt? I just bought a horse!!

[Woofer]

Someone else vote for Red. Sweet god, please, someone else vote for Red.

[IWasSentWest]

let's go neo!!! buahahahhahahha :excited:

[Woofer]

Please. Anyone but Keanu Reeves. As near as I can tell from watching The Matrix trilogy, the character of Neo was supposed to be cool, but then they cast Keanu Reeves.

[pathoftheturtle]

Nah. Neo was supposed to be a basic jerk who finds out that he has incredible power. It's a cool world, but Mr. Anderson wasn't so great in character.

Still, whatever you folken might say, I voted for Ed Bloom, and I have no regrets.

[Woofer]

You misunderstand. I meant that Neo was supposed to be 3 dimensional, not a cardboard cut out.

Well, I had to act like it was a presidential election and vote for someone who might beat out the one I loathe.

[IWasSentWest]

i kinda liked how his character (or him rather) was kind of distant and didnt show emotion. shit that's how i would be if i found out i was just a crop being harvested by machines.

[Woofer]

i kinda liked how his character (or him rather) was kind of distant and didnt show emotion. shit that's how i would be if i found out i was just a crop being harvested by machines.

But that's only an accident because Keanu is wooden and can't act. It's not as if he put a lot of effort into playing the character. He was just his usual dull, wooden self.

[sarajean]

i kinda liked how his character (or him rather) was kind of distant and didnt show emotion. shit that's how i would be if i found out i was just a crop being harvested by machines.

i could agree with this statement if (and only if) he didn't "play" the same character in every other movie he has been in.

(except bill and ted.)

SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULZ!

[IWasSentWest]

well that's what im saying. i mean i knew he didnt mean too, but it just kinda worked out

[Woofer]

well that's what im saying. i mean i knew he didnt mean too, but it just kinda worked out

It didn't for me. It ruined the movie and turned me off to the series.

[pathoftheturtle]

You misunderstand. I meant that Neo was supposed to be 3 dimensional, not a cardboard cut out.I understood; I just don't think you're right to put so much emphasis on the performance. I wouldn't vote for him because Morpheus was the better character, anyway.
That's all.

[candy]

why is ed bloom trailing peoples?????????? his character was a beautiful character and it was played fantastic well by both actors:rose:

just to jump in on the NOT NEO to win, i agree that the first matrix film was very good and the neo character looked like it may go somewhere but the 2nd and 3rd films killed the character for me as it stayed stuck in the same mould and did not develop any further.

just my two pence worth:rose:

[cozener]

I actually really enjoyed the idea behind Matrix. I just thought the execution of that idea was kinda fucked up. But I liked Hugo Weaving's Agent Smith.

[pathoftheturtle]

I actually really enjoyed the idea behind Matrix.No one's arguing with that. :couple:

I agree with candy; the best that can be said about Neo was that at one point it looked as though he might become a better character.

*sigh* Still looks like he's going to win, tho... no new votes. <_<
But maybe Ed Bloom will catch up! :D :excited:

:unsure:
Well, catch up a little more, anyway? Maybe? :)

[alinda]

Someone has to save this thing from the Savior! Oh, what a delicious piece of irony! :lol:

Vito is only one vote away ... :)

i gave him my vote, hoping someone else would do the same so that we can make sure that neo doesn't continue on.

i notice that no one has openly admitted to voting for him. :orely:

I voted for him , on the basis of the first movie alone, which would imo have been better with out the other 2 films.:wtf:

[candy]

But maybe Ed Bloom will catch up! :D :excited:


:huglove: fingers crossed

[IWasSentWest]

agent smith and morpheus were by far the best characters of the movies. but neo is, well neo. kinda hard to explain beyond that

[pathoftheturtle]

agent smith and morpheus were by far the best characters of the movies. but neo is, well neo. kinda hard to explain beyond thatYeah, sure. :rolleyes: Admit it -- you guys just want to have his powers. :P

[Woofer]

Someone has to save this thing from the Savior! Oh, what a delicious piece of irony! :lol:

Vito is only one vote away ... :)

i gave him my vote, hoping someone else would do the same so that we can make sure that neo doesn't continue on.

i notice that no one has openly admitted to voting for him. :orely:

I voted for him , on the basis of the first movie alone, which would imo have been better with out the other 2 films.:wtf:

I can't do that, and that's why so many characters are out of the running for me. If a character rocks in one movie but sucks in four sequels, that's 4:1 against so s/he is right out. For example, I couldn't vote for Bond because it was all Bonds and I don't think all Bonds were good.

The first Matrix was all right, but it was an out-and-out retelling of an old Outer Limits story (or was it a Twilight Zone? I forget exactly. I'm leaning toward Outer Limits, though.) so the storyline isn't exactly as innovative as it seemed. Likewise, "bullet time" was nothing new; it was just used A. LOT. Hugo Weaving was great, though.

EDIT: I don't need to put "I believe/I feel/I think/In my opinion" in front of all that, right? You guys realize I'm not making a blanket claim but am merely stating my opinion. WOOF!

[fernandito]

Come on Red ! ... :cry:

[IWasSentWest]

hell yeh i'd love to have his powers! haha

[Woofer]

hell yeh i'd love to have his powers! haha

Not me. I'd rather be Maurice, Samantha's father from the original Bewitched.

Plus. Witch powers. DUH!

[fernandito]

*bump*

This poll closes later today!

[Brice]

Someone has to save this thing from the Savior! Oh, what a delicious piece of irony! :lol:

Vito is only one vote away ... :)

i gave him my vote, hoping someone else would do the same so that we can make sure that neo doesn't continue on.

i notice that no one has openly admitted to voting for him. :orely:

I voted for him , on the basis of the first movie alone, which would imo have been better with out the other 2 films.:wtf:

I can't do that, and that's why so many characters are out of the running for me. If a character rocks in one movie but sucks in four sequels, that's 4:1 against so s/he is right out. For example, I couldn't vote for Bond because it was all Bonds and I don't think all Bonds were good.

The first Matrix was all right, but it was an out-and-out retelling of an old Outer Limits story (or was it a Twilight Zone? I forget exactly. I'm leaning toward Outer Limits, though.) so the storyline isn't exactly as innovative as it seemed. Likewise, "bullet time" was nothing new; it was just used A. LOT. Hugo Weaving was great, though.

EDIT: I don't need to put "I believe/I feel/I think/In my opinion" in front of all that, right? You guys realize I'm not making a blanket claim but am merely stating my opinion. WOOF!

Uh, yeah! I'm thinking Outer Limits too for some reason. Maybe Harlan Ellison should have got screen credit for this. :lol:

[Still Servant]

Wow, so much hate for Neo. Despite what some of you may think, the original Matrix is an amazing film. I also think that for Reeves' limits as an actor, he does a really good job as Neo.

You guys really hate Reeves that much? Are you telling me you don't like Speed? Speed was such a cool movie. Mind boggling.

I pity those that can't look past their hatred for an actor and enjoy a movie. I can assure you, you're missing out on a lot of great films.

[Brice]

I liked speed. And I did like the matrix. Neo just wasn't the best character compared to some of the others, IMO.

[Jean]

I liked Speed, and I did not like the Matrix. I don't see how one should depend on the other.

[fernandito]

My decision was between Neo and Red, and even though I ended up voting for the latter, I love both of those characters and think that they're both amazing characters in their own right and both deserved to advance.


Advancing to the next round :
Vito Corleone (The Godfather)
Neo (The Matrix trilogy)

[Still Servant]

I liked speed. And I did like the matrix. Neo just wasn't the best character compared to some of the others, IMO.


I was mainly just talking about how much people hate him, not so much if he's a better character than the others.

My point with Speed is that if you hate Reeves so much, that means you must not have enjoyed the film.

I have friends and family who will literally not see a movie because there's an actor they despise that bad in it. I just hate that.

It's seems like some of the people here feel that way towards Reeves.

[candy]

My decision was between Neo and Red, and even though I ended up voting for the latter, I love both of those characters and think that they're both amazing characters in their own right and both deserved to advance.


Advancing to the next round :
Vito Corleone (The Godfather)
Neo (The Matrix trilogy)

you know i think this is the only one where i have seriously disagreed with who has gone though! :cry:

[Woofer]

Wow, so much hate for Neo. Despite what some of you may think, the original Matrix is an amazing film. I also think that for Reeves' limits as an actor, he does a really good job as Neo.

You guys really hate Reeves that much? Are you telling me you don't like Speed? Speed was such a cool movie. Mind boggling.

I pity those that can't look past their hatred for an actor and enjoy a movie. I can assure you, you're missing out on a lot of great films.

Hold on a minute. What objective scale of measure is there by which you hold up "The Matrix" to measure it as "an amazing film"? Or are you expressing your opinion? I'm going to guess that you're simply expressing an opinion (just as I have been).

I freely admit that I am the most vociferous of the People here who hate Keanu Reeves. Yes yes yes yes yes 1,000 times yes. I can't stand {ETA} Tom Cruise*{/ETA} or Ben Affleck** either. That doesn't mean I won't see a movie with them, just that I really don't like the actors and, as a result, generally don't like the characters they play. Also, if it is a movie that only mildly piqued my interest in the first place, then yes, KR being in it would stop me from seeing the movie. It would be the proverbial straw - camel - broken back scenario.

And I'm sorry, but the idea behind The Matrix was done in an old black and white science fiction show, either the Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, or Science Fiction Theater. Still, I enjoyed the movie but not enough to go out of my way to watch it again. (EDIT: Just saw Brice's note about it probably being OL. I tend to agree. TZ was always on the lighter side. Although it could've been Science Fiction Theater... Obviously it wasn't exactly the same, but it was a world taken over by aliens. The protagonist wakes up to find he's been dreaming his entire life. It ends with him looking out over all the other humans in their little bins hooked up to the giant alien computer. I think his pod had failed somehow and that's why he woke.)

I got bored with Speed pretty rapidly, so I've never seen it all the way through.

I'm certain there are movies I think are awesome and that you think suck; however, that doesn't turn either of our opinions into fact. It's sort of like this picture... Old woman? Young lady? Both!

http://gryphonscry.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/optical_illusion.jpg?w=368&h=374

*But Cruise made a fantastic Lestat in IWtV.
**At least Affleck can change his expression.

[cozener]

It isn't Keanu Reeves I hate. Its the poor execution of a great idea for a movie that rankles me. Sorry Still, I just don't think Matrix was done that well. Sure, the first one is a fun movie...not a bad movie by any stretch. I just think it could have been better. Yes, they could have found a better actor to play Neo but considering the limitations of the script it may as well have been Reeves as well as anyone else. As far as acting was concerned, the shiniest parts of that movie (or any of the three) were the parts with Agent Smith in them. But Weaving has the kind of gravitas that elevates the lines he's speaking and makes them sound special.

About Keanu Reeves, an actor like Reeves has his uses. He can play certain parts quite well. And you're right that Speed was a good movie. But thats the kind of thing he should stick to...the Speeds and the Point Breaks. If its going to be something that requires depth or range...no. He was also good in My Own Private Idaho but again, his character was pretty shallow. The depth of feeling in that movie came from River Phoenix.

[Brice]

Woofer, I'm almost certain it was outer limits ...and a Harlan Ellison one at that. I haven't seen that other series you mentioned before.

[jayson]

And I'm sorry, but the idea behind The Matrix was done in an old black and white science fiction show, either the Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, or Science Fiction Theater. Still, I enjoyed the movie but not enough to go out of my way to watch it again.


Sorry Still, I just don't think Matrix was done that well. Sure, the first one is a fun movie...not a bad movie by any stretch. I just think it could have been better. Yes, they could have found a better actor to play Neo but considering the limitations of the script it may as well have been Reeves as well as anyone else.

ah, this is why i like you two so much.

thank you for refreshing my faith in humanity.

knowing that i trail only woofer in despising mr. reeves, people assume i didn't like the matrix because of him. i can assure you, they could have cast (insert name of amazing actor here) and i'd still have not cared for it for the exact reasons woofer and coz have suggested.

the idea has not only been done before in film, it is among the classic philosophical hypotheticals that i encountered in class after class. my problem with it is just as coz expressed, it was an excellent idea but poorly executed.

and speed? i'm sorry, i hated that one. admittedly, i am not a fan of the vast majority of action movies, but speed serves as an excellent example of why.

at least vito moved on. if vito had lost to neo and, well pretty much anyone else in this bracket, it would have been a travesty.

[Woofer]

You guys. :grouphug:

Brice, the more I think about it, the more I think you nailed it. Just don't tell Harlan that I forgot one of his stories. He has a really big ego (and a TV set almost as big).

[Still Servant]

Wow, so much hate for Neo. Despite what some of you may think, the original Matrix is an amazing film. I also think that for Reeves' limits as an actor, he does a really good job as Neo.

You guys really hate Reeves that much? Are you telling me you don't like Speed? Speed was such a cool movie. Mind boggling.

I pity those that can't look past their hatred for an actor and enjoy a movie. I can assure you, you're missing out on a lot of great films.

Hold on a minute. What objective scale of measure is there by which you hold up "The Matrix" to measure it as "an amazing film"? Or are you expressing your opinion? I'm going to guess that you're simply expressing an opinion (just as I have been).

I freely admit that I am the most vociferous of the People here who hate Keanu Reeves. Yes yes yes yes yes 1,000 times yes. I can't stand {ETA} Tom Cruise*{/ETA} or Ben Affleck** either. That doesn't mean I won't see a movie with them, just that I really don't like the actors and, as a result, generally don't like the characters they play. Also, if it is a movie that only mildly piqued my interest in the first place, then yes, KR being in it would stop me from seeing the movie. It would be the proverbial straw - camel - broken back scenario.

And I'm sorry, but the idea behind The Matrix was done in an old black and white science fiction show, either the Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, or Science Fiction Theater. Still, I enjoyed the movie but not enough to go out of my way to watch it again. (EDIT: Just saw Brice's note about it probably being OL. I tend to agree. TZ was always on the lighter side. Although it could've been Science Fiction Theater... Obviously it wasn't exactly the same, but it was a world taken over by aliens. The protagonist wakes up to find he's been dreaming his entire life. It ends with him looking out over all the other humans in their little bins hooked up to the giant alien computer. I think his pod had failed somehow and that's why he woke.)

I got bored with Speed pretty rapidly, so I've never seen it all the way through.

I'm certain there are movies I think are awesome and that you think suck; however, that doesn't turn either of our opinions into fact. It's sort of like this picture... Old woman? Young lady? Both!

http://gryphonscry.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/optical_illusion.jpg?w=368&h=374

*But Cruise made a fantastic Lestat in IWtV.
**At least Affleck can change his expression.

Here's my philsophy on film:

Everybody has their own opinions on what films are good and what films are not. Like you said, there are films that you think are great that I would say suck and vice verse.

That being said, there are some facts when evaluating movies. If I were to say Citizen Kane was an awful film, I would be wrong. There are right and wrong answers with many films.

If 100 people say the sky is blue and 20 say it's purple, who's right?

I'm just going to use one example, but The Matrix has an 89% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. That means there are 105 people that liked it and 17 who didn't. True, just because they liked it doesn't make it an "amazing" film. That is the subjective part of my statement. My opinion as you put it.

That does not take away the fact that The Matrix is a very good movie. A sci-fi classic. Anybody who thinks it's not a good movie (in their opinion) is wrong.

Yes, their opinion is wrong. It happens.

I have arguments like this with my cousin all the time. It's what I love about movies.

[sarajean]

no.


definition of opinion:

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

you can NOT tell me that my personal belief or judgment is WRONG. it is MY opinion and is therefore valid. you telling me that my opinion is wrong is the equivalent of telling me to shut the fuck up, and i just won't do that.

sorry.

(but really, i'm not)

:)

[Still Servant]

No, I'm telling you that the majority can't be wrong. Although I'm sure there are certain instances.

Everybody always uses the opinion card (I do it too) but sometimes it really doesn't apply. If you don't like a movie and thousands of other people like it then I think more weight must be given to the majority. I'm sorry, I just do.

It doesn't mean their opinion means more than yours, but it has to count for something.

I definitely didn't mean it as shut the fuck up though. I must correct that.

[sarajean]

okay, but...again.

an opinion is a PERSONAL BELIEF. you can't tell someone that their PERSONAL BELIEF is wrong. whether YOU CHOOSE to give more weight to someone else's opinion that you happen to agree with is not the same as telling someone that their opinion is WRONG.

[Heather19]

OK, I'm just going to jump in here to say one thing. I kinda understand what you're trying to say. There are definitely some films that I hate, that I can at least step back and say that while I didn't enjoy it, it was still a well made film, or can appreciate it for what it did for cinema as a whole. That being said, I still personally didn't enjoy the film, and would never watch it again.

[Still Servant]

My intent wasn't to ruffle any feathers.

I will retract the statement about an opinion being wrong.

I still think something has to be said for the majority rules. I like what Heather said though.

There are a ton of films that I just don't "get" and don't like, but I can understand and respect them as good films. Even if my opinion differs.

Again, I didn't mean to make people mad.

[Heather19]

No worries, you didn't upset me :)

[jayson]

No, I'm telling you that the majority can't be wrong. Although I'm sure there are certain instances.

dateline 1492

the majority thinks the world is flat

despite this, columbus' fleet manages to somehow not sail off the edge of the world

the majority is not right because they are the majority

a larger number of positive reviews on rotten tomatoes does not demonstrate a great film. it's called anecdotal evidence and it's worth fuck all.

even your is the sky blue or purple example is faulty on its face. it's a matter of perception. no two of us see shades of colors in precisely the same way. it is distinctly possible that the minority opinion holder does in fact see a purple sky. his disagreement with the majority does not invalidate his interpretation.

[Woofer]

jayson and sj are correct.

While I appreciate your attempt to educate me on how to analyze a film, Still Servant, I am a professional technical writer and a former prof of college literature, composition, and literary analysis. I'm pretty sure that I know the difference between a subjective opinion and objective evidence.

:grouphug:

[IWasSentWest]

easy fellas, easy. no need to be throwin around job titles and shut the fuck ups! opinions do that to people, make em all antsy in their proverbial pantsies. i personally loved the film, and still liked the other two even though they were hogwash compared to the first one. matrix reloaded kinda killed the reputation of the first film. but the fight between neo and mr. smith at the very end of matrix revolutions was badass. IMO :) ehehhe

[Woofer]

IWSW there most certainly is a time to throw out titles and, just as the medical professionals are doing in the swine flu thread, this is one of those times for me. I'm sorry if you don't like - or understand - that. However, when someone attempts to educate me on a topic and errs in every aspect - after I have already explained the difference in the first place - then, yes, it's one of those times.

By the way, you might have noticed that I even tossed out the perennial favorite old lady/young lady perspective picture to illustrate that opinion depends on how you look at something, making The Matrix both an awesome film and nothing special.

Facts:
The Matrix stars Keanu Reeves.
Megatheater47 only sells Pepsi products.
The Dark Tower is a series of 7 books.

Opinions:
No actor could've played Neo as well as Keanu Reeves.
Coke products taste better than Pepsi products.
The Dark Tower is a long-winded, self-indulgent personal epic.

What you (general you) can do, however, when you assert that something is awesome is to supply concrete reasons why you think that way.

ASSERTION: The Matrix is the best science fiction movie of the last decade of the 20th century. With its unique visualization of a future world and revolutionary special effects, The Matrix set the bar for movies to come.

SUPPORT: Now there are two facts to expand upon: a unique visualization of the future (provided you don't run across the name of that story we keep thinking about) and the special effects. From this point, you illustrate why you think this way, e.g. other future visions always have the humans alive and awake blah blah blah. Likewise, you point out what effects other films were using at that time and how the techniques employed by the effects team at The Matrix blew all that out of the water.

BTW, I'm also fairly certain that nobody here told anyone to stfu.

http://psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/read2.gif

[IWasSentWest]

the throwing around job titles thing was a joke woofer....easy


no.



you telling me that my opinion is wrong is the equivalent of telling me to shut the fuck up, and i just won't do that.



:)

and thats what i was talking about with the shut the fuck up thing. also a joke. lighten up people, lighten up

[IWasSentWest]

and i really dont wanna go through the trouble of doing the whole "assertion" and "support" thing. just takes too damn long....i think i'll stick with the matrix was an awesome movie :) (also a joke, i think i'll label those from now on, if the thread starts to get a wee bit offensive...........also a joke)

god im just full of em today

[Still Servant]

jayson and sj are correct.

While I appreciate your attempt to educate me on how to analyze a film, Still Servant, I am a professional technical writer and a former prof of college literature, composition, and literary analysis. I'm pretty sure that I know the difference between a subjective opinion and objective evidence.

:grouphug:

Woofer, I wasn't trying to educate you on anything. All I did was state MY PHILOSOPHY on film. I wasn't saying that's how everybody in the whole world should evaluate movies. I knew most people would disagree. I didn't think I would get this kind of reaction, and I now regret saying anything.

With that being said, it seems you're not shy about stating that you're more than qualified to educate us on the subject.

I guess since I'm a professional videographer who as written a feature length screenplay, I more qualified to debate certain aspects of film.

Wrong. Of course I'm not.

I don't care how much smarter you are than me or more educated in this field, there are some things I'm not willing to give you. When my friend comes up to me and says the best film of all time is A Night at the Roxbury, he is wrong.

I know that's his opinion, but it's wrong. You can throw out ever title you want, you can post your whole resume for all I care, but you will never convince me otherwise. Subjective, objective or any other 'tive you can find. He's wrong.

Jayson, the Columbus thing is a good point. I'm not a huge fan of Columbus. I'm not sure you can really "discover" a land that already had people on it, but whatever. Also, anybody who has ever been on the ocean can understand why people thought he was crazy. It's just so flat for as far as the eye can see.

I really didn't mean for this to turn into an argument. Anybody who knows me, knows that's the last thing I like to do. I apologize if I offended anybody.

[Jean]

ASSERTION: The Matrix is the best science fiction movie of the last decade of the 20th century. With its unique visualization of a future world and revolutionary special effects, The Matrix set the bar for movies to come.

SUPPORT: Now there are two facts to expand upon: a unique visualization of the future (provided you don't run across the name of that story we keep thinking about) and the special effects. From this point, you illustrate why you think this way, e.g. other future visions always have the humans alive and awake blah blah blah. Likewise, you point out what effects other films were using at that time and how the techniques employed by the effects team at The Matrix blew all that out of the water.
And even in this case there will be petitio principii... it is assumed that the number and quality of special effects has anything to do with a movie being good or bad, which is highly questionable (bears say "questionable" only to sound civil, although they have answered this question to themselves long ago).

[Brice]

My opinion is that majorities are almost always wrong. Remember people popularity has led us to something in life such as Britney Spears. I think this fact alone disproves the myth of majority rules. :lol:

Woofer, Harlan would SUE you for forgetting. :rofl: And you mentioning his tv reminded me the other day I saw that Aquos now makes a 108" LCD tv. That's damn 9ft. of tv. :excited: Does someone have 117,000 I can borrow, please?

[Woofer]

jayson and sj are correct.

While I appreciate your attempt to educate me on how to analyze a film, Still Servant, I am a professional technical writer and a former prof of college literature, composition, and literary analysis. I'm pretty sure that I know the difference between a subjective opinion and objective evidence.

:grouphug:

Woofer, I wasn't trying to educate you on anything. All I did was state MY PHILOSOPHY on film. I wasn't saying that's how everybody in the whole world should evaluate movies. I knew most people would disagree. I didn't think I would get this kind of reaction, and I now regret saying anything.

With that being said, it seems you're not shy about stating that you're more than qualified to educate us on the subject.

<snip>

I really didn't mean for this to turn into an argument. Anybody who knows me, knows that's the last thing I like to do. I apologize if I offended anybody.

Actually, I wasn't talking about being qualified to educate you or anyone else on film. I am, however, qualified to educate people on literary analysis as well as positing an argument/position/thesis and supporting it with facts.

I challenge those of you who think I'm a bitch for pointing out my credentials in this thread to rush on over to the Swine Flu Vaccine (http://thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=9329) and serve a ration of shit to all the medical professionals who are establishing their credentials before relating what they know about and/or their opinions on the vaccine.




ASSERTION: The Matrix is the best science fiction movie of the last decade of the 20th century. With its unique visualization of a future world and revolutionary special effects, The Matrix set the bar for movies to come.

SUPPORT: Now there are two facts to expand upon: a unique visualization of the future (provided you don't run across the name of that story we keep thinking about) and the special effects. From this point, you illustrate why you think this way, e.g. other future visions always have the humans alive and awake blah blah blah. Likewise, you point out what effects other films were using at that time and how the techniques employed by the effects team at The Matrix blew all that out of the water.
And even in this case there will be petitio principii... it is assumed that the number and quality of special effects has anything to do with a movie being good or bad, which is highly questionable (bears say "questionable" only to sound civil, although they have answered this question to themselves long ago).

Exactly, Jean, exactly. Heck, I don't even believe it, but I could write a damn good paper proving it.


My opinion is that majorities are almost always wrong. Remember people popularity has led us to something in life such as Britney Spears. I think this fact alone disproves the myth of majority rules. :lol:

Woofer, Harlan would SUE you for forgetting. :rofl: And you mentioning his tv reminded me the other day I saw that Aquos now makes a 108" LCD tv. That's damn 9ft. of tv. :excited: Does someone have 117,000 I can borrow, please?

Yes, Brice! That's very true. ROFL! Harlan probably has two already.



And now we see why I initially tried to illustrate how two people could see the same thing in two dramatically different ways.

:grouphug:

[fernandito]

Feev's opinion : The Matrix is a milestone is Sci-Fi movie making, it has had an undeniable effect on sci-fi movies since it's release in 1999.

[Woofer]

Feev's opinion : The Matrix is a milestone is Sci-Fi movie making, it has had an undeniable effect on sci-fi movies since it's release in 1999.

:huglove:

[cozener]

No, I'm telling you that the majority can't be wrong. See, I think with the Matrix it wasn't the quality of the movie that turned people on as much as the sleek techno-Gothic atmosphere of the Matrix world. It wasn't the script or the acting, nor was it the story. Dark city landscapes, an underground rebel society whose members run around wearing black leather trenches and sunglasses toting sic weaponry, cool action scenes scored with some great techno music...these things made The Matrix.

[pathoftheturtle]

...Jayson, the Columbus thing is a good point. I'm not a huge fan of Columbus. I'm not sure you can really "discover" a land that already had people on it, but whatever. Also, anybody who has ever been on the ocean can understand why people thought he was crazy. It's just so flat for as far as the eye can see. ...I'm confused by your approach -- you say he has a good point, then you make some rather irrelevant counter-points. :beat: So, do you get it, or not? "The majority" may change over time, or may otherwise have varying definitions. Like I often say, there's no such thing as common sense. (The whole tangent, btw, is actually quite apropos; if the majority can't be wrong, then perhaps there really is only The Matrix.)

[jayson]

(The whole tangent, btw, is actually quite apropos; if the majority can't be wrong, then perhaps there really is only The Matrix.)

:clap:

absolutely perfect observation

[Jean]

My opinion is that majorities are almost always wrong. Remember people popularity has led us to something in life such as Britney Spears. I think this fact alone disproves the myth of majority rules. :lol: I don't care who or what Britney Spears may be, but various other evidence supports this opinion strongly, and has been supporting it during the whole course of human history.

[cozener]

No, I'm telling you that the majority can't be wrong. Y'know still...this is really kind of a warped thing to believe. Just sayin'. Here's a few notes on the majority...

Most people in the US circ their baby boys. And I think its pretty clear that I'm not anywhere near a place where I might concede the point just because the majority does it.

Most women in the US deliver their babies while drugged out of their minds.

Most people in this country are fat. Do you really think they're right?

Most people in 1939 Germany thought Hitler was kinda neat. I think most of us can agree that they might have been mistaken.

Until Pearl Harbor happened most people in the US didn't want to fight a war to take Hitler down. Whaddya think? Would we have been right to sit that one out? We might be having this conversation in German.

John Adams believed that only a third of the population of the American colonies wanted to actually fight Britain for independence.

But first and foremost, Still, most people liked Titanic and that movie sucked my nutsack so hard I talked like Minnie Mouse for a week.

[Woofer]

Once upon a time the majority of Americans believed slavery was right, women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and man would never walk on the moon. :orely:

Additionally, 98% of the population knows that 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :P

[sarajean]

jayson, woofer, mike, brad and jean: :grouphug:

[Still Servant]

...Jayson, the Columbus thing is a good point. I'm not a huge fan of Columbus. I'm not sure you can really "discover" a land that already had people on it, but whatever. Also, anybody who has ever been on the ocean can understand why people thought he was crazy. It's just so flat for as far as the eye can see. ...I'm confused by your approach -- you say he has a good point, then you make some rather irrelevant counter-points. :beat: So, do you get it, or not? "The majority" may change over time, or may otherwise have varying definitions. Like I often say, there's no such thing as common sense. (The whole tangent, btw, is actually quite apropos; if the majority can't be wrong, then perhaps there really is only The Matrix.)

No, I understand his point. I just really don't like Christopher Columbus. :)

I also stated that in certain instances the majority is wrong. It's just how I choose to look at things. Nobody has to subscribe to it.

[IWasSentWest]

gee thanks for the hug sarajean :(

[Brice]

No, hug for me either. :cry:


Servant: You do realize if the majority doesn't believe in the "majority is right" idea it kinda' punches holes all in this theory, right? :lol:


I'm just messing around, man. :couple:

[pathoftheturtle]

It's a heavy paradox, for sure. :lol:
Once upon a time the majority of Americans believed slavery was right, women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and man would never walk on the moon. :orely:

Additionally, 98% of the population knows that 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :PExactly so. Is it even true that an actual majority of people ever believed those things? Since slaves weren't even counted as "Americans," and since women didn't get to vote, how could we know? Justifications, made up on the spot. <_<

[Jean]

Come on guys, you're pulling my hind paws, right? Knowledge of what people believed or thought does not come from what statistic says. It's the whole of the culture, the recorded events and so on - and the method[s] of analyzing these, right or wrong; that is why history still is a science, however much someone might want to turn it into mythology.

[Woofer]

Yes, jean. I was making a joke about statistics and their relevancy to whether or not something is good or bad, right or wrong, etc.

Take the case of out BMCOAT polls. Whoever wins is not really the best movie character of all time; it's the best movie character according to...

a completely unscientific, but fun, series of polls
voted on only by members of thedarktower.org
who knew about the contests
and who cared enough to vote


That is all.

[Jean]

that is why Henry didn't have any chances... or any member of his large (and knowledgeable) family... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sad.gif

[Woofer]

I know.
You know I know.
I know you know I know.
We know Cozener knows, and Cozener knows we know it.
We're a knowledgeable internet family.

[cozener]

You turd!

[Still Servant]

No, hug for me either. :cry:


Servant: You do realize if the majority doesn't believe in the "majority is right" idea it kinda' punches holes all in this theory, right? :lol:


I'm just messing around, man. :couple:

Yes...yes I do.

It's not the first time I've had holes punched through one of my theories.

<_<

[pathoftheturtle]

But a little might be salvaged from your idea yet, I reckon, if it were modified to just say that the actual, tangible influence of a given film is a considerable factor in forming a reasonable opinion of its value.
... it is assumed that the number and quality of special effects has anything to do with a movie being good or bad, which is highly questionable (bears say "questionable" only to sound civil, although they have answered this question to themselves long ago).Sounds like a great discussion for another thread! I do think that a case could be made that, since movies are a visual medium, techniques for creating different imagery definitely play a vital role in them.

[Jean]

I have an answer to that, but I'll shut up since it's clearly not the right place. I hope when we have such a thread, I won't miss it. (or maybe we could fit it into one of the existing threads? only please let me know if such a discussion starts somewhere)

[Woofer]

I have an answer to that, but I'll shut up since it's clearly not the right place. I hope when we have such a thread, I won't miss it. (or maybe we could fit it into one of the existing threads? only please let me know if such a discussion starts somewhere)

Absolutely. However, you all know why I chose that particular aspect to emphasize in the example. N'est ce pas? (My French... needs polishing. Many years since I spoke it more than once a month (or two)!)

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[Brice]

Come on guys, you're pulling my hind paws, right? Knowledge of what people believed or thought does not come from what statistic says. It's the whole of the culture, the recorded events and so on - and the method[s] of analyzing these, right or wrong; that is why history still is a science, however much someone might want to turn it into mythology.

Actually, I view history more as opinion than as science. You either end up with one person't viewpoint of what happened or at best can piece together multiple viewpoints in hopes of getting a somewhat clear picture. It's accuracy though is wholly dependent on whoever recorded it.

[jayson]

Actually, I view history more as opinion than as science. You either end up with one person't viewpoint of what happened or at best can piece together multiple viewpoints in hopes of getting a somewhat clear picture. It's accuracy though is wholly dependent on whoever recorded it.

:clap:

precisely

history is in the hands of those writing it

does nobody think the last 8 years or so of events will look significantly different in american history books than they will elsewhere?

history is always going to be subjective

[Jean]

Sorry, it goes very far beyond topic, but if you both read what I said unbiasedly (I mean, conceding that I may not be such a complete idiot as not to see that all history is always written subjectively, either on purpose or due the very nature of recording), you will see that we are talking about two entirely different things, both of which have the misfortune of coming under "history" in people's minds. I am ready to argue my point, if it still is not clear, but not here.

[jayson]

jean, though i am not entirely sure of what you're talking about, you know i am always game for these conversations. i suspect when i realize what you are talking about, i will see that we likely agree.

[Brice]

How I explained history to be is my only understanding of it so honestly I'm just confused here. If you can explain what you mean here (or elsewhere) differently perhaps I'll get your meaning.

[Jean]

jean, though i am not entirely sure of what you're talking about, you know i am always game for these conversations. i suspect when i realize what you are talking about, i will see that we likely agree.
Absolutely.

History as a sum of records, written documents and material evidence, is always subjective. The aim of a historian is not to swallow anything whole. In this, history does not differ from any science: there's a number of data, and a number of methods of analyzing this data, and synthesizing a picture of the whole (physical, chemical, historical).

The methods are inadequate, by definition - tainted by various factors, including ideology.

The data is counterfeit, by definition.

This is how it is in any science, - in physics, too, data is corrupted by observation, and methods always imperfect.

The task of an honest historian, like that of any honest scientist, is in perfectioning the method, and not being afraid of refuting old theories if they no longer hold water - and he must understand that his picture will be refuted by generations to come.

No, I don't see this approach as subjective or relative. History is science in two main respects that characterize science:

1. It never gives us a final picture, but only one that will develop with time, as mankind develops;
2. In spite of this, its ultimate material is the past that actually existed, and the reconstruction of this past as true as possible is the ultimate task of an historian.

That is why history is neither mythology, or game of relativity - although it may be the former at every given historical moment of development of any given society (like any other science taught at school), and the latter, alternative history and fantasy novels based on it being a very important scientific method, namely, experiment (which has to take place in mind, but is nonetheless quite sound)

[Brice]

I agree that's how a historian should do approach his job, but I suspect that's rarely the case of how it's actually done in practice.

[Jean]

I agree that's how a historian should do approach his job, but I suspect that's rarely the case of how it's actually done in practice.
That's what I meant when I said we were talking about two different things. I was speaking about history as a category, and you - both - about its historical phenomenon, which is, quite obviously, mythology. At every given moment. That's what caused the bear's confusion - you couldn't have for all those years considered me such a moron as to deny such obvious things? http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_unsure.gif

[Brice]

No, I couldn't, but I am somewhat easily confused.

[jayson]

so yes, as i suspected, clarification shows agreement. :D

[Jean]

so yes, as i suspected, clarification shows agreement. :D
Between us - always. Has been noticed before.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/BEAR-HUG.jpg

[Woofer]

*dives in to join* *grouphug*

[pathoftheturtle]

Sorry, it goes very far beyond topic, but if you both read what I said unbiasedly (I mean, conceding that I may not be such a complete idiot as not to see that all history is always written subjectively, either on purpose or due the very nature of recording)...Exactly what I conceded to myself when you first posted, which is why I didn't drag this thread further afield myself. Good points, Brice and jayson, and Woofer (earlier). Still -- you the man, Jean.

:grouphug:

Back to The Matrix: I don't think that the (repeatedly complained about here) supposed unoriginality of its "key" concept really does detract from the importance or overall quality of the films.

[jayson]

Back to The Matrix: I don't think that the (repeatedly complained about here) supposed unoriginality of its "key" concept really does detract from the importance or overall quality of the films.

i agree. like i said, it's not the derivative nature of the concept, that's true of most things. i just found it poorly executed. i can handle derivative if it's done well.

[Jean]

Exactly what I conceded to myself when you first posted, which is why I didn't drag this thread further afield myself. Good points, Brice and jayson, and Woofer (earlier). Still -- you the man, Jean.

:grouphug:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif



i agree. like i said, it's not the derivative nature of the concept, that's true of most things. i just found it poorly executed. i can handle derivative if it's done well.
This.

[Woofer]

Exactly what I conceded to myself when you first posted, which is why I didn't drag this thread further afield myself. Good points, Brice and jayson, and Woofer (earlier). Still -- you the man, Jean.

:grouphug:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif



i agree. like i said, it's not the derivative nature of the concept, that's true of most things. i just found it poorly executed. i can handle derivative if it's done well.
This.

Yes. It's all about how well the tale is told or the play/movie/show executed. I, for example, wouldn't make a good comedian because I suck at telling jokes. I'm always too dry or off a bit on my timing.

[pathoftheturtle]

Well, I wouldn't say that "it's all" about the execution: Content certainly matters. I see the point you're all making, tho, I think.

However... I dunno; I would never say that The Matrix is the best movie of all time, but I do like it, alright.

When it comes to best characters, however, we can ultimately agree. I don't think that Neo was perfectly executed, but not too bad. I do think his conception was pretty good, personally. IMO, tho, he just never showed enough self-determination to warrant his advancement here towards our title. <_< *shrug*

[Woofer]

Ah, but good content in a story/book/movie/whatever that bores/angers/disgusts/whatever one to the point of not completing it has defeated itself by driving off the audience.

[pathoftheturtle]

Not if it is only one. ;)

And my point: there's only so much that you can do with poor content, anyway.

[Woofer]

Believe me, I know all about trying to make something good from inadequate input. I'm doing it right now.

Perhaps it's best if I just say nothing more because I am too tired of having to prove that what I'm doing is right to people who have never done it and that's probably making me a little bit pissy here. I apologize if that is the case. Fall also seems to ramp up my SAD, which sucks because I LOVE fall.

"Just do everything I tell you to do." MJK

[pathoftheturtle]

Eh. Nothing personal, Woofer. Still, do hope that your job is not all bad. :) Thanks for your participation here. All quite interesting. :couple:

[cozener]

"Just do everything I tell you to do." MJK Mary Jo Kopechne said that? I thought my wife coined that phrase. That unoriginal plagiarizing bitch!

[Jean]

"Just do everything I tell you to do." MJK Mary Jo Kopechne said that? I thought my wife coined that phrase. That unoriginal plagiarizing bitch!
It's one of those Jungian archetypes. They all do that.

[Woofer]

ROFL!

TOOL and Maynard James Keenan from the song Opiate - album of the same name.

[cozener]

Oh fine! Call me names! Its soooo easy! :angry: