Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ramsay B.

Watch, Watched, Watching: Strange Times

Recommended Posts

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Football in U.S. terms or the world?

(you just wait, DMC)

U.S. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

U.S. 

Is Julio Jones an all-time great receiver? What defines all-time great? Top 3? Top 5? Top 25? Top 100? You did cite a list of the top 100, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Interstellar is the one I have more problems with.

Interstellar has just as many flaws but I enjoyed it more for some reason, not really sure why.


 

 

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I get that, I just took it as a metaphor and for me it works. But it can also feel like a lack of resolution for what felt like a 75 hour movie. 

For me it wasn't so much the lack of resolution itself as

we already know Cobb is unhappy with the concept of dream Mol, and a life in dreams in general. I get that it's meant to be 'he's in a position where he's not stressted about it anymore' but  him accepting dream children just doesn't fit for me and would amount to abandoning his actual children in reality.




 

 

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

But then again, I didn't even mention most of the movies he's made the past decade because I haven't bothered to see almost all of them.  Because most look like shit.  Tintin and Ready Player One? 


Sure, Spielberg has been on a long bad run. I feel like he needs to slow down because he's still making movies the same pace he always did but he's 73 now and I'm sure that factors why they seem rushed or lazy (his project choice has also just gone downhill, mind). The original question this sparked off from though is 'whose filmography would you keep if you could only keep one'? For me Spielberg's highest highs are way above Nolan's- I don't have to watch the shit ones or ones I don't care about. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is Julio Jones an all-time great receiver? What defines all-time great? Top 3? Top 5? Top 25? Top 100? You did cite a list of the top 100, after all.

Yeah, probably, top 20ish.  But I would argue that while there is some subjectivity in football,  great players, Larry Fitzgerald as another receiver example, stuck on mediocre teams for the most party, freakish bizarre plays that change the course of history, etc. it is generally more objective than something like art. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yeah, probably, top 20ish.  But I would argue that while there is some subjectivity in football,  great players, Larry Fitzgerald as another receiver example, stuck on mediocre teams for the most party, freakish bizarre plays that change the course of history, etc. it is generally more objective than something like art. 

Does being top 20 at something not mean you're an all-time great?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Does being top 20 at something not mean you're an all-time great?

Did you miss the 'yes' in the previous post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

The original question this sparked off from though is 'whose filmography would you keep if you could only keep one'?

I understand.  And of course just based on age, but also personal preference, Spielberg has a much larger list than Nolan.  Just saying, if I was stranded on a desert island and offered one of their two catalogues, I'd take Nolan's without skipping a beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Just saying, if I was stranded on a desert island and offered one of their two catalogues, I'd take Nolan's without skipping a beat.



I mean, it's fair, I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't. Just why I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

No, you're empirically wrong, both in terms of industry perception and public perception.

Industry perception nominated Jaws for an Oscar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

Industry perception nominated Jaws for an Oscar.

But it didn't win, whereas the first two Godfathers did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Jaws acknowledged as a great film?  It isn't obviously as artsy or as deep as something like The Godfather, but I would say it is a great thriller and a master class in building suspense.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

But it didn't win, whereas the first two Godfathers did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being nominated for, or winning, an Oscar has fuck all to do with the quality of a film. Crash won an Oscar ffs. Forrest Gump won one in a year with Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't personally like Jaws, but I'll grant that it is generally widely lauded and the building of suspense in particular is something any cinephile should study.  I just have a major problem with comparing its quality to the first two Godfathers.  It's not on their level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Did you miss the 'yes' in the previous post?

So then you agree, right, that Die Hard and Predator are all-time great films? 

(I was joking about the director, but he did take a few piles of shit and turn them into gold, which is what can make a great director)

1 hour ago, DMC said:

You were asserting Die Hard and Predator were among the greatest films, not just directing, which yes was the original topic.  As for the AFI list, first one I googled had Godfather at 2, Godfather 2 at 32, and Jaws at 56.  I think it's ridiculous they had two that low, but regardless, you don't compare Mike Trout to Whit Merrifield.  As for the difficulty in writing dialogue, I suspect I have more experience in its difficulties than you, thanks.

Doesn't that just show how subjective all of this is? Godfather 2 is one of the movies most brought up when discussing a sequel that's better than the first (I do debate myself about this, but I tend to like the first one better). This is a conversation without a correct answer. Frankly there are hundreds of movies I could argue that are better than some of the dull shit on that list. Most of them are still there solely because gatekeepers want them there. 

(I also don't doubt your writing ability, but you still haven't made a movie people quote decades later, yet)
 

47 minutes ago, DMC said:

I understand.  And of course just based on age, but also personal preference, Spielberg has a much larger list than Nolan.  Just saying, if I was stranded on a desert island and offered one of their two catalogues, I'd take Nolan's without skipping a beat.

I think you could make the argument that Nolan makes better films, but overall Spielberg's have more appeal in general and they're a lot easier for most to watch again. 

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

Interstellar has just as many flaws but I enjoyed it more for some reason, not really sure why.

For me it wasn't so much the lack of resolution itself as

  Reveal hidden contents

we already know Cobb is unhappy with the concept of dream Mol, and a life in dreams in general. I get that it's meant to be 'he's in a position where he's not stressted about it anymore' but  him accepting dream children just doesn't fit for me and would amount to abandoning his actual children in reality.

 

Ugh, I just skimmed a breakdown of the ending, and I feel like I know even less about the film now. This level of complexity works a lot better in a book.

 

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

For me it wasn't so much the lack of resolution itself as

Wait..

Spoiler

I don't think his kids at the end are "dream children" at all.  I prefer a "clean" interpretation of the ending - where he actually is in reality and extricated Mal from his subconscious.  Which conforms to many if not most of Nolan's endings - the protagonist saves the kid(s).  The spinning top doesn't confirm nor deny anything, which I think was Nolan's point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer that interpretation too but my problem is that including the shot of the top makes it ambiguous for absolutely no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t understood that interpretation. Without the top wobbling it’s definitely a dream. He could’ve made it so Leo destroys the top or simply decides not to spin it but that still indicates it’s a dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, polishgenius said:

Does it really bother you to have spoiler tags just coz the movie's ten years old? Not everyone will have seen it.

No, it just seems weird because its been out for a decade and the ending has been widely discussed and debated all over the media and the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...