Best Comedy Tournament: Round 2 - Group C

[pathoftheturtle]

You see one joke, while I see more than that. That's where this magical word called 'subjection' comes in.

"Subjection" is a synonym of "subjugation." What you describe sounds more like the definition of "subjectivity."

Both are derivative of the word 'subject', which has various forms and definitions. I meant subjective but, autocorrect.

Yeah, I hate when my phone does that. It's good enough here, I just wanted to make sure you knew.

And in terms of the rest of these films, I'm not a big Beetlejuice or Blue's Brothers fan, I'm not a Jump Street fan either, and I haven't yet watched Ed Wood. So I picked the only 4 movies I really enjoyed, with Ted being one of them.

You are more of a fan for personal reasons, I guess? That's cool, if so, but can you appreciate that those are better movies?

No, it just made me laugh. I can't appreciate a movie is better if I'm not fond of it. I can judge a movie for what it's trying to do, and for what Ted was trying to do, it did it well. If it's not your cup of tea, it's not your cup of tea.

Not sure whether we are communicating at all. Are you saying that you can't appreciate a quality film apart from subjective attraction or that you've already considered altered perspective to the point that it can't affect your opinion any further?

Why does some comedy make some people laugh and not other people? It's subjective or it's personal; something, sometimes hard to say, inside of you.

I remember when Polanski won his directing Oscar for The Pianist I thought that it was ironic that Scorsese had been passed over again possibly because his work so often focused on crime in ways that the academy found unpalatable. I would say that if and when we admit the level of judging what movies are trying to do, then the personalities of creators is indeed a factor in that to some respect.

[Mattrick]

[QUOTE=pathoftheturtle;913055]

Not sure whether we are communicating at all. Are you saying that you can't appreciate a quality film apart from subjective attraction or that you've already considered altered perspective to the point that it can't affect your opinion any further?

Why does some comedy make some people laugh and not other people? It's subjective or it's personal; something, sometimes hard to say, inside of you.

The problem here is that we're voting on films as comedies, and how they work as comedies. If a comedy doesn't make me laugh, or doesn't make me laugh much, how can I judge it's worth if it's purpose failed on me? There are some quality films like Almost Famous that are comedies that weren't given votes because it also functions so well as a drama, people didn't think it was a comedy. A lot of dramatic movies are hilarious but are either not viewed as comedies or simply didn't make people laugh. I'm afraid the way people are voting in this tournament has little to do with the quality of the film itself, and instead has everything to do with how much they laugh. It's a simple yet subjective metric.

Most of my favourite comedies are already eliminated, or weren't nominated, and they're all better films than Ted. I don't really have much to work with going forward :/ When it comes to comedies a movie can look shitty, have a shitty plot and be an all around shitty movie...but it can still be funny. Quality isn't necessarily a requirement for funny.

I remember when Polanski won his directing Oscar for The Pianist I thought that it was ironic that Scorsese had been passed over again possibly because his work so often focused on crime in ways that the academy found unpalatable. I would say that if and when we admit the level of judging what movies are trying to do, then the personalities of creators is indeed a factor in that to some respect.

Polanski won because The Pianist is a masterpiece

[pathoftheturtle]

Voting on films as comedies definitely is a problem, just like I have been saying all along, for anyone interested in drawing any kind of meaningful conclusions. Comedy is just a buzzword. It can be nearly anything. All these things go on for different reasons, and often for no reason. Congratulations to all of us for making a tournament that's fundamentally silly!

Polanski won because The Pianist is a masterpiece

Well, yeah.
Scorsese's past losses make for another good topic, though.

[Mattrick]

The funny thing about Scorsese is so many people view him as 'that mob guy' and think his films boil down to Goodfellas, The Departed, Casino and Mean Streets. I'm a huge Scorsese fan but my favourite films of his have nothing to do with crime. When I think Scorsese I think Raging Bull, The Aviator, After Hours, Hugo. It's funny Scorsese is seen by a lot of people as a crime director when that's such a small part of his filmography.

[pathoftheturtle]

Well, I don't know if Raging Bull is totally dissimilar. My point is not that he has nothing else in his oeuvre, but just that Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Gangs of New York are all Oscar-worthy, and by some unfairly looked down upon.