Where are the film buffs?

superiorinferior · Post by **superiorinferior** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:04 pm

dhcjrew wrote: Since when did I believe my voice was much greater than anybody else's here?

I don't know when you started believing it, but it has been pretty clear for me since you started critiquing and deconstructing a website that someone thought there might be a picture of his outhouse.

This isn't a college term paper.

**Sponsor:**

Hank W. · Post by **Hank W.** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:22 pm

superiorinferior wrote: someone thought there might be a picture of his outhouse.

Well, I know the photo is framed on his wall.

superiorinferior · Post by **superiorinferior** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:32 pm

Hank W. wrote:
superiorinferior wrote: someone thought there might be a picture of his outhouse.
Well, I know the photo is framed on his wall.

Yeah, but apparently not on the now-dhcjrew-reviewed site you linked to.

MagicJ · Post by **MagicJ** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:42 pm

It's often a problem with film/media students (or ex F/M s) that they just end up sounding pretentious. Spouting off ideas about how Truffaut's blah blah blah is echoed in the ***** of Almodovar.

I'm a huge film fan some of my favourites include Old Boy, Solaris=you know which one, The Return, Diva, City of God.

But the nature of Film students who 'analyse' films and the film making process tend to believe they are authorities on the subject and feel that by giving some analysis of how the lighting effect etc used in a particular film embodies the work of blah blah blah means their understanding of the film is superior to the laymans. Rubbish, just because i don't necessarily spot the edits or framing of a piece it doesn't mean i don't get/appreciate/feel/understand the film. I haven't seen Masculin, Féminin but if i do and don't understand it does that mean i don't know anything about film?

I will at this point wish DHCJREW every success in his/her? filmmaking ventures as that's where this thread started out.
I will keep reading because it's amusing reading posts from someone with such a high opinion of themselves.

sinikala · Post by **sinikala** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:12 pm

LMAO at some of the responses on here.

dhcjrew wrote:
sinikala wrote:So that makes two of us! Well done, have a banana.
If I can copy/paste correctly, you said, "To simply slap subtitles on a samurai film would not necessarily have worked for a mainstream US audience, language is not the only barrier."
So you mean... it wouldn't have SOLD in the US?? Ahhh, gotcha. "selling" in this form does not require monetary exchanges.

No, I don't mean sold, I meant, as I wrote, worked. The audience would not have "got it", the point of most movies, is to entertain, not to provide food for semi-intellectual masturbation by a select few.

dhcjrew wrote:
sinikala wrote:If you want to demonstrate laziness in Hollywood, you'd get more mileage if you targeted remakes of english language films e.g. Get Carter, The Ladykillers, Ocean's Eleven, Thomas Crown affair etc.

Even then the counter argument; that the originals, as good as they were at the time, lack relevance for a contemporary audience, is still strong.
Why does it matter what film Hollywood remakes? I simply used international titles as a point of reference. If you want to use original Hollywood titles that got remade, then by all means, use it. It sounds to me, based from your posts, that your idea of a great film is proven from it's generated revenue. Spiderman 1, 2, and 3 generated millions and millions worldwide... but does that make them great films?

So you are a film buff that thinks the originals of The Ladykillers and Get Carter are from Hollywood?! Oh dear me.

It shouldn't sound to you at all what my idea of a great film is, I have yet to post my opinion on that, you may however, conclude that for someone to believe a film is great they need to empathise / relate to or at least have a passing interest in the subject matter.

dhcjrew wrote:Regardless of the audience... regardless if the film is over 200 years old... regardless if it is in Chinese and you speak Martian... if a film is good, it's good.

Cinema as we know it is about 110 years old, not 200. And one man's good film can be Dogger in the eyes of another.

dhcjrew wrote:But then you'd be asking me, "what makes a film good then?" Which leads me to...

Don't think I would be, you didn't like Spiderman 3, so your opinion is obviously pants.

dhcjrew · Post by **dhcjrew** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:40 pm

i don't understand most of you who have this complex against me. I have yet to belittle someone the way a couple of you have with me, or even my opinions. You all win. I'm one and done with this public lynching. I was starting to grow onto this online community, but now I see this community is like the other online forum communities-- all the regulars just poke at the new guys who have an opinion on things.

superiorinferior wrote:I don't know when you started believing it, but it has been pretty clear for me since you started critiquing and deconstructing a website that someone thought there might be a picture of his outhouse.

This isn't a college term paper.

...Yeah, but apparently not on the now-dhcjrew-reviewed site you linked to. Sad

He gave me a link to his friend's photography website. Anything related within the Art realm will have criticisms. What's wrong with criticizing Hank's friend's photographs? It's a healthy discussion between photographers. Since when did everyone get so sensitive to art criticism?

@MagicJ
A little background on my education... I attended a University that dealt with Film History, Theory, and Criticism.

I haven't seen Masculin, Féminin but if i do and don't understand it does that mean i don't know anything about film? Rolling Eyes

I never said you wouldn't know anything about film. When I explained the process in which I view film, I'm not trying to belittle anyone... but to give an idea of how I, myself, view films... how I was mentored. It's to give an idea to the average movie-goer of how films are also watched. If anything, it's information intended to enlighten those who were not aware of it before.

I will keep reading because it's amusing reading posts from someone with such a high opinion of themselves.

Because I have strong opinions on things, it doesn't justify your reason to believe I have such a high opinion of myself.

@sinikala
my first reply to you was never an intention to call you out. Rather, I was agreeing with you for the most part, except for the relevance to audiences. You chose to belittle me instead and brought along a bandwagon of forum trolls to critique me as an individual. It's obvious there was some miscommunication, but I'm really here to discuss film the way I've been accustomed to.

In fact, I never intended to offend anyone on this forum with my opinions. I believe that most of what I posted was comprehended in a different context than it should have. Anyway, thanks for those who joined in on the short-lived film discussion.

superiorinferior · Post by **superiorinferior** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:26 am

dhcjrew, watch this and then come back with a critique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

dhcjrew · Post by **dhcjrew** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:42 am

superiorinferior wrote:dhcjrew, watch this and then come back with a critique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

your humor isn't well appreciated. i expected more class from a near 40-year old forum regular. i thought this thread would be over by now. but to entertain you, i will tell you why your method of comparing me to the ranting man in line is irrelevant, rather than critiquing the clip.

1) Read the title of the thread. You're smart. I think you would have understood the sorts of conversations that would take place in this thread.

2) A man ranting in a move line is irrelevant because you aren't forced to wait for an event to take place here. If someone else had started this thread and I came in here spilling my opinions on film and the arts, then maybe your comparison would hold more water. But as it stands, I created this thread to speak to those who understand film the way I do. If you never understood that, then don't label me as some drawn up character in a Woody Allen film.

And again, I have to address to everyone that this thread has befallen to a group of e-thugs. For anyone to think I have this pretentious attitude from posts that I make on a public forum, is ignorant. For Christ's sake, I'm a fcking PT cleaner with a BA in film that's worth sht here. I came to this forum to meet others who had similar tastes in a culture I'm passionate about, but instead get bombarded by regulars who think they know better. Speaking 'Art' is a language. If you don't understand it:
Put up, shut up, or learn it. Pick one instead of being derogatory and indifferent.

Karhunkoski · Post by **Karhunkoski** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:05 am

sinikala wrote: To simply slap subtitles on a samurai film would not necessarily have worked for a mainstream US audience, language is not the only barrier.

Nope, you have to be able to read too

Hank W. · Post by **Hank W.** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:20 am

dhcjrew wrote:[ I have to address to everyone that this thread has befallen to a group of e-thugs. For anyone to think I have this pretentious attitude from posts that I make on a public forum, is ignorant.

Oh pull up your drawers, the light shining out of your arse blinds the proles.

Hank W. · Post by **Hank W.** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:59 am

superiorinferior wrote: Yeah, but apparently not on the now-dhcjrew-reviewed site you linked to.

I've got a few good artsy-fartsy ones of my junk collection

Hrmpf... the question of the day is though should I get a spare

superiorinferior · Post by **superiorinferior** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:25 pm

dhcjrew wrote: you aren't forced to wait for an event to take place here.

Yes I am. I await the day that someone says something really cool on these pages. And I thought this might be the thread when you started talking about how you wanted to make films in Finland and then the thread sky dived into rants about "fillum," and that's not what I stopped by to read about.

dhcjrew wrote: Speaking 'Art' is a language. If you don't understand it:
Put up, shut up, or learn it.

I see.

MagicJ · Post by **MagicJ** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:46 pm

I acknowledged that this thread was supposed to lead somewhere else but the title 'Film Buffs'??? not exactly film makers is it; i know nothing about the film making process but would have been interested to read on.

If you hadn't started telling people that they only watched movies for the masses (I'm sure there are lots of 'fans' with 400 Blows and There's something about Mary on the same shelf) then you wouldn't have watched your thread descend into a farce. Maybe we should have a 'Let's discuss movies'(sorry make that films, i'm English) thread and 'I'm into serious film-making, what about you?' thread, then i'm sure most of those who you've had a prang with here would no doubt offer you excellent advice and open up an interesting discussion.

I may be a member of FF, but generally only join in on football debates and the caption competition so wouldn't consider myself a 'regular who think they know better' i just felt offended by your attitude to film fans, even those who like the Matrix

Again, good luck in your endeavours.

sinikala · Post by **sinikala** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:05 pm

dhcjrew wrote:
superiorinferior wrote:dhcjrew, watch this and then come back with a critique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY
your humor isn't well appreciated.

That's simply not true.

Laugh??? I Nearly Paid My Licence Fee. (1984)

superiorinferior · Post by **superiorinferior** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:22 pm

dhcjrew wrote:i expected more class from a near 40-year old forum regular.

Is this a typo or are you some kind of stalker that has figured out my age? Did you mean "4-year forum regular" or "40?"

Finland Forum

Find information about moving to, living in and life in Finland

Where are the film buffs?