Why, God, why?!? - Films That Should Not Get The Greenlight

[Gold Trumpet]

you're wrong again.  just because you can't like the movie due to your own failure to write about it doesn't mean the rest of people who love it are idiots. 

Haha, my own failure to write about it? Explain that one.

Most people I know who adore the film do so with concessions. They understand the technical limitations and accept what they love about the film has more to do with their emotions than what the movie really has to offer. Everyone likes some movies they cannot defend. Their personality just gives in to what they see. I do this with a few action movies and people do with it Casablanca. My choices stay as trash to the public while Casablanca is ballooned into a preposterous idea of art by too many. 

[pete]

I was trying to look up a scene from "What's Up Doc" when it leads me to the piano scene from Casablanca, which leads me to the goodbye scene from there.  I've only seen the movie once, based on a fervent recommendation from a friend when I was a senior in high school.  I thought it was good but soon had forgotten about the movie until those two youtube clips.  I rather liked the timing of your post because I would've agreed with its ridiculous claim had I not spent four minutes staring at my computer monitor last week. 

They understand the technical limitations and accept what they love about the film has more to do with their emotions than what the movie really has to offer.

Of course one's "love" for something has more to do with his emotions.  As much as I find your outlook on film to be entirely wrong, arrogant, and disgusting, I really thought you'd be above "people only like it because it's the thing to do" and that type of laziness. 

[Gold Trumpet]

Of course one's "love" for something has more to do with his emotions.  As much as I find your outlook on film to be entirely wrong, arrogant, and disgusting, I really thought you'd be above "people only like it because it's the thing to do" and that type of laziness. 

Arrogance is good - up to a point. People love to love all kinds of movies. Arrogance helps place standards on movies so you can discriminate against films that you think is below a critical tier. Of course carrying this attitude to everyday conversation is assholish because most people don't take movies seriously, but it is still necessary when dealing seriously with films yourself.

Of course I am happy you don't like my viewpoint because I have zero consideration for your opinion. Your arrogance is ridiculous because you believe there is a right and a wrong when looking at films. I don't take my opinions that seriously. Plus your opinion on movies seems to come from whatever is motivating your gut that day. Of course you try to rationalize it with bullshit pie in the sky ideas, remarks about "soulfulness" and other things that make no sense. You are no different than a child who likes things based on whatever fancies their interest. Then you defend old actions like how you publically hated Gladiator for years before seeing it because knew you would hate it.

I'm not above the Casablanca comment because I've made my opinion known on the film for years. I've written extensively about it. I don't need to reaffirm every idea I have about the film everytime it comes up in any conversation. My point about Casablanca in the public realm is a legitimate one.

[pete]

things that you cannot grasp is pie in the sky, because tastes must be quantified.  I don't know if I believe that there is a right way when looking at films, but I do know that your way is wrong.  Wrong because you breed self-hatred which leaks into everything you've written, whenever a film is discussed.

Plus your opinion on movies seems to come from whatever is motivating your gut that day.

so how I feel about movies depends on how I feel, and you've failed to grasp that as well.  I liked your childhood simile because I have one of my own too.  You're that kid who makes up the rules to everything you do, you never learned how to play, and when other kids show no regard for your rules, you get mad. 

[Gold Trumpet]

things that you cannot grasp is pie in the sky, because tastes must be quantified.  I don't know if I believe that there is a right way when looking at films, but I do know that your way is wrong.  Wrong because you breed self-hatred which leaks into everything you've written, whenever a film is discussed.

I doubt you even understand my perspective. The people who do take the time to argue me on a general basis do it very well and can see my points as rational. You're also very casual with referencing Werner Herzog's quote when how he said 95% of films suck in a given year, but do you really believe it? Do you even understand the number of films that it entails? You're too happy go lucky with accepting films to be like that. It's fine if you want to be like but stop quoting the man, for god's sake.

But, I'd also hate to have someone like you believe in the good of my opinion so try to rationalize what I said above.

so how I feel about movies depends on how I feel, and you've failed to grasp that as well.  I liked your childhood simile because I have one of my own too.  You're that kid who makes up the rules to everything you do, you never learned how to play, and when other kids show no regard for your rules, you get mad. 

What a stupid analogy to make for one of the few members who loves and plays sports.

Gut has nothing to do with feelings. Gut acceptance is about taking something and accepting it because it moved wowed you on the most basic levels. Movies are a candy entertainment with a lot of attractive appeals and gut acceptance has to do with the displays of certain cinematography's, certain sympathetic storylines, certain shooting techniques, and certain other things that make you think all of a film is good when what you were really were impressed with was just a portion of the film. Feelings and intelligence are on hand when you take issue with all of the film. You go so nuts with picking small likes of a film that it allows you to be overwhelmed and cloud your perception.

[pete]

man, waking up to this is kinda annoying, but fun at the same time.  Arguing about Casablanca is quickly turning into nothing.

because Casablanca is a great film, and you just keep on quoting things that I've said that have nothing to do with each other, and expect me to defend the points that I don't give a shit about.  And you keep on asking me if I understand what I'm quoting.  It's like everytime I pick on you, I expect to hear a lot of good arguments because you're so hellbent on being able to defend everything, but a closer look always reveals that everything is just a bullshit illusion.  I tried to be empathetic before, but you seemed to hate it.  Since I don't really care about what you love and hate, I'll say it again.  You're way more quickly to show emotional bias towards particular subjects and films and disregarding other criteria than me.  Your reviews give away more about your personal frustrations and anger than me.  This is fine, except that you're an one-note angry child, getting mad mostly at people with not just taste that is different from yours but a way of looking at films different from yours as well.  Your idea of arguing about film is essentially asking people to play your game, you've spent so much time crafting your fort, but when people say "that's not me" or try to circumvent it, you stomp your feet and get angry, and you get really angry at me, so angry that you try hurling anything that might hurt me.  That is too bad, 'cause I always thought you were a lot of fun.  I might not have respected your bullshit essays, but I am quite fascinated by your anger.  Not anymore though.

random points for your random jabs -

• Herzog was talking about the films he'd seen at the festivals, so I do understand the number.
• Your disowning gut from feelings while happily linking it to "intellect" needs to be linked to intellect.
• my childhood analogy wasn't a sports one.  I am a pretty dedicated boxer though, if that counts.
• you went on to ramble about the all seeing all seeing all of the film and the bigger picture, as if that was so hard.  fuck, I've sat through a movie and not liked it before.

[Gold Trumpet]

man, waking up to this is kinda annoying, but fun at the same time.  Arguing about Casablanca is quickly turning into nothing.

It never was an argument about Casablanca. You never said why it was great. You just said it was. I didn't say much more myself, but I was always replying more to the jabs in between your posts. I briefly replied to a point you made about Casablanca, but it was never really about Casablanca.

It's like everytime I pick on you, I expect to hear a lot of good arguments because you're so hellbent on being able to defend everything, but a closer look always reveals that everything is just a bullshit illusion.  I tried to be empathetic before, but you seemed to hate it.

It's hard to make sense of most of your posts. You go on different tangents without much clue or direction. You also have the most philosophically sparse arguments. You say things that could constitute as an idea, but you don't surround it with much information or context. You just go onto the next random revelation you have. I like to actually argue with people who make points.

Since I don't really care about what you love and hate, I'll say it again.  You're way more quickly to show emotional bias towards particular subjects and films and disregarding other criteria than me.  Your reviews give away more about your personal frustrations and anger than me.

I definitely do have a bias and I'll be the first one to admit it. I also show it a lot on this forum, but its because I have to. So many members will argue the most general entertainment flicks as 'best film' this or 'great film' that. They will cross reference these films with other films I don't think deserve mention in the same paragraph. If I have any chance to actually make arguments with these people about those films then I do need to make my position known of how I see the film they think it is a masterpiece. While they see art, I many times just see entertainment. If I didn't make distinctions between how I viewed these films I would have no chance to make any argument with them at all. I'm much more a structuralist than most members. It's just part of my viewpoint.

This is fine, except that you're an one-note angry child, getting mad mostly at people with not just taste that is different from yours but a way of looking at films different from yours as well.  Your idea of arguing about film is essentially asking people to play your game, you've spent so much time crafting your fort, but when people say "that's not me" or try to circumvent it, you stomp your feet and get angry, and you get really angry at me, so angry that you try hurling anything that might hurt me.  That is too bad, 'cause I always thought you were a lot of fun.  I might not have respected your bullshit essays, but I am quite fascinated by your anger.  Not anymore though.

Ever since you started making your points against me personal (and I warned you about what was personal), I decided my grudges with you would hold no more patience or concern for your feelings. I can't respect you because you don't say shit so yes, you get the grudge version of myself. I'll probably learn for my mistakes of dealing with you by trying better to avvoid you or realize you are a clown personality like others have told me, but I'm still harboring some resentment so forgive me for these posts.

But no, your description of me with others is wrong. If you mean "play my game" by me writing a review with solid points and some people questioning me and not what I have to say, then yes I can show a little frustation. I've never resorted to name calling (with exception to you and someone else) but I will directly ask them why they respond to my reviews with just assumptions about who I am. Some people want to think I hate all movies because I've been unfavorable to their favorite movie, but I think I have a sensible approach and can compliment movies. If you look at most of my essays on Green Screen you will see most are in favor of certain movies. Of course most of those essays got no replies and are overlooked because of the few famous films I have gone against, but after the posting of my There Will be Blood dissent later this week or early next week, I'm going directly into an essay to why I love Good Will Hunting so much.

[Pozer]

just stop.

[Gold Trumpet]

just stop.

It did. Thanks for your useless post. Do you want to make a dead subject a new argument?

[Pozer]

sorry, ive been away. 

[MacGuffin]

Clooney Flocks to The Birds?
Oscar winner rumored for Hitchcock remake.

Rod Taylor, who starred in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds as attorney Mitch Brenner, has spilled the beans about which A-list star is in the running to play Mitch in Universal's remake.

Metro.co.uk reports that Taylor informed Britain's Daily Express, "I often cringe when I hear mention of remakes but I'll hold judgement, especially since I've been told [George] Clooney's the favourite."

Naomi Watts will play female lead Melanie Daniels, the role first played by Tippi Hedren. Hedren is not keen on seeing The Birds get remade, having previously told the Express, "Can't we find new stories, new things to do? Must you be so insecure that you have to take a film that's a classic and try to do it over?"

Martin Campbell (Casino Royale) is attached to direct The Birds for Platinum Dunes and Mandalay Pictures.

[Bram]

I would love to see Clooney scaring some blond girl shitless in a crow suit by yelling "KAW".

[SiliasRuby]

hehe...funny stuff.

[MacGuffin]

New 'Bonnie and Clyde' has duo circling
Hilary Duff, Kevin Zegers in talks to play the bank robbers
Source: Hollywood Reporter

The story of Bonnie and Clyde is getting a retelling, with Hilary Duff and Kevin Zegers in negotiations to play the infamous 1930s bank robbers.

Tonya S. Holly is directing "The Story of Bonnie and Clyde" and producing the indie drama with Tom Rogers via her Cypress Moon Studios.

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were Depression-era lovers and outlaws whose exploits captured the public's imagination. Their story has hit the big screen several times, with 1967's "Bonnie and Clyde," starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway, considered a classic.

The makers are stressing that the new film is not a remake and are promising to showcase times in the couple's lives not seen onscreen before. Holly first became interested in the story of the fugitive lovers after finding old newspaper articles about their exploits in an abandoned house on her family's property.

Holly most recently wrote, produced and directed the family film "When I Find the Ocean," which stars Lee Majors, Diane Ladd and Graham Greene.

"Bonnie" is scheduled to shoot in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

Zegers' credits include "The Stone Angel," "The Jane Austen Book Club" and "Transamerica." The actor, repped by CAA and Untitled Entertainment, most recently starred with Ben Kingsley and Jim Sturgess in "Fifty Dead Men Walking."

Duff, whose most recent feature role was "War Inc.," is repped by WMA and Curtis Talent Management. She just signed to star in the NBC comedy "Barely Legal" under her development deal with the network.

[hedwig]

tonya s holly, you just made my list.

i wasn't ready for this. i could handle the idea of Bonnie and Clyde being remade, sure it's stupid but everything is being remade now and i've become pretty good at forgetting these shitty remakes even exist. but.. then.. hilary duff. no.

what's next? i don't want to know. i don't.