|
|
Post by tylerdurden on Jul 6, 2010 0:05:40 GMT -5
You cannot be serious NP. The action is the movie certainly, but not all of the movie. The story is the definition of interesting. Seriously, the world we live in is fake, the real world is under attack by robots! Good job on just re-posting with like 2 new sentences and a youtube video.
|
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jul 6, 2010 5:05:05 GMT -5
It sure sounds like I'm joking around, doesn't it?
I re-posted the two original paragraphs because they were still right on the money. Especially with the new sentences. Purifies the point I was making before. I whittled down the original post to just the bare essentials.
I mean, when I see a movie- I don't always see it for all that it is. But I sure as hell know what's wrong with it, everytime. I'm perpetually finely-tuned in to flaws in movies. It's a gift (curse?). I've already conceded that the movie may have ambition. And when you insisted that everyone liked the movie, I made sure to clarify that I said only people like me couldn't plug into it. Then you changed your mind and said it wasn't popular. Well, one million or so parody scenes and spoofs in films ranging from 2000 to today beg to differ with you.
Nothing I say will change the fact that what this is really about is that the movie can't work on everyone like you say it does. But nothing you say can hide the fact that it's nowhere near the movie you want it to be. Despite its good intentions, it makes huge mistakes along the way (hiring Joe Pantoliano - every single thing I've seen him in lacks depth like that were its' mission - should have been a tip-off to them, yet to further prove my claims- the casting people were as clueless as the filmmakers). And those are enough to make the viewing experience, for people who can even borrow my ability to notice when a movie is overdoing it to the point of inspiring anger, absolutely agonizing. If they wanted it to have the impact you are suggesting it does, they would have made a different movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by tylerdurden on Jul 6, 2010 18:42:45 GMT -5
It wasn't popular compared to The Phantom Menace, which made double what the Matrix did. The fact that there are millions of parodies/rip offs of the movie show how amazing it is. I'll admit it's not for everyone. It's a lot smarter and quieter than most action movies. They did make the impact I suggested. You even said it yourself "Well, one million or so parody scenes and spoofs in films ranging from 2000 to today beg to differ with you." There's no denying the fact: The Matrix is an amazing film. You might not like it, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad film. Steve doesn't like the Dark Knight that doesn't mean that it's a bad film. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jul 7, 2010 4:15:23 GMT -5
I'll admit it's not for everyone. Why? I already did. It's a lot smarter and quieter than most action movies. I've already admitted I can see where the ambition was headed. But it's been blocked. The Pantoliano scenes alone stop the film dead in its' tracks and before that, it was already sputtering on reserve fuel. (Did I neglect to mention... CGI?) They did make the impact I suggested. Pal, I don't want to bring a harsh truth to light here... I'm holding it back as hard as I can... But you're putting immense pressure on already begging-to-burst floodgates. The Matrix belongs to the culture of Lazy Straight Man's Existentialism. A place where, often, fart jokes are revered as cutting edge comedy and Larry the Cable Guy isn't a sign of the Impending Apocalypse. Like its' own land, if you will. Where They Live is boss, a flawless work of cultural satire and a killer action movie to boost. Where Jason Alexander is a sex symbol, Robert Rodriguez never did any wrong, Chuck Norris is more than a petty minded Bible-thumper, The Man Show is watchable, Jack Bauer is a hero, Jeff Murdoch ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBSnlADrbyY ) is a modern day philosopher, and Spike-TV is cool. The film's real impact is cool for coolness' sake. By the same standards that find: the anti-hero is always a paragon of masculinity (not overcompensating in the slightest), alcohol is a food group (and why shouldn't it be; it = prohibition, is the reason we have gangster movies), pimps are role models, and daisy dukes aren't just an article of clothing but a cultural phenomenon. You even said it yourself "Well, one million or so parody scenes and spoofs in films ranging from 2000 to today beg to differ with you." There's no denying the fact: The Matrix is an amazing film. Popularity does not dictate quality. Everyone knows that. The fact that there are millions of parodies/rip offs of the movie show how amazing it is. Are you kidding me with this? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum so far (no offense, Steve  ). Clearly a case of wishful thinking standing in for rationality. The plot of I Know What You Did Last Summer has similiarly been parodied hundreds of times. Is that amazing now, too? Song of the South is one of the biggest objects of ridicule in pop culture satirical history; does that mean it's not offensive anymore? How does one follow that kind of logic, exactly? The parody process is merely a means by which humorists try to get people to take something less seriously, exploit it for laughs. Nothing more. You're fluffing it up the way religious people say the fact that people attack Jesus's image and take his name in vain is what makes him our lord and savior. You might not like it, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad film. Um... why do you think I don't like it in the first place? * Lemon-face meet Facepalm* |
|
|
|
Post by tylerdurden on Jul 7, 2010 5:07:17 GMT -5
I was acknowledging that you were correct about that.
Joey Pant's scene with Smith is great. And before that, we got introduced to the madness of the future. That's not really sputtering. The film constantly keeps you engaged.
That really has nothing to do with what I said. If your insinuating that the movie is style over substance you're wrong. There's plenty of style, with ideas and philosophy that give the movie substance.
Mostly. In cases like Transformers 2, people saw it because it was PG-13, Megan Fox was in it, explosions, and Transformers were well known. The Matrix was a new franchise, something people never saw. In those cases like with Star Wars, a new, fresh idea becoming very popular indicates usually indicates quality.
Star Wars has had millions of parodies and it's a great movie. Halloween has had millions of rip offs, and it's a great movie. Usually, the movies that inspire parody/rip offs are good.
Now that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard on this forum. The whole argument we're having is because you called the Matrix a pile of shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jul 7, 2010 6:19:43 GMT -5
Now that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard on this forum. The whole argument we're having is because you called the Matrix a pile of shit Tyler... READ things more carefully next time you reply. You say, "you might not like it, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad film." I say- why do you think I don't like it. Aka: what makes me dislike it? Why would a person dislike ANY movie...? And by the way, I'm not cool with this really stupid thing people have- saying we all like good movies and dislike bad ones. There are lots of good movies I don't "like." There is a very wide spectrum of Like and Dislike. I Appreciate anything good. What you mean to say is Appreciate, not Like. For example, I don't like Halloween or Dawn of the Dead but I Appreciate them a lot. I like watching them but they are not my favorite kind of horror movie. Hell, I think The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Carrie are flawless but I don't like them. I Appreciate them. In fact, liking movies is more about the pieces than the whole thing. It has to be a very special thing, very special as in unique to me personally somehow to be a movie that I like. And there are very, very few movies I like. In my book, "Like" means that I feel the movie was made just for me. Or - and this is important to note - that I can overlook flaws just because the music is so amazing (as in, what I love to hear - maybe even nostalgic somehow) or the style is so great. Or it takes place somewhere that has an incredible attraction for me (real or fantasy). A lot of people are like this- just look at all those movies people overrate just because they claim they offer something that's quintessential New York City (like Maniac or that Channing Tatum movie from last year, Fighting). When I don't expect anyone in the entire world to agree with me... that's a movie I Like. Joey Pant's scene with Smith is great. That entire section of the film is aggressively worthless. So the word "great" only applies to how much of a great waste of time it is. As in; Large. Big. Much. A lot. That really has nothing to do with what I said. You forget; I don't agree with what you've been saying. I'm placing the film in its' correct cultural context. If your insinuating that the movie is style over substance you're wrong. There's plenty of style, with ideas and philosophy that give the movie substance. My argument is that it has substance with a particular section of the cultural audience. And it just so happens, though they may even make up the majority, their standards aren't very discriminating to begin with. Mostly. In cases like Transformers 2, people saw it because it was PG-13, Megan Fox was in it, explosions, and Transformers were well known. The Matrix was a new franchise, something people never saw. In those cases like with Star Wars, a new, fresh idea becoming very popular indicates usually indicates quality. You're failing to look at what the fan-ownership of these cult films says about them. Star Wars has long been associated with the image of nerds who have no life (and the real life fanbase doesn't do much to prove this stereotype wrong by example). A HUGE segment of the public have complete apathy toward everything to do with the movies. That's when they're not rolling their eyes. And I can't say that I blame them. I wouldn't use their inherent childishness as an excuse to say they suck (I am a horror fan- after all). But I will say; Damn, those movies are boring! Unless you have a huge TV and expensive sound system. Then maybe you'll stay awake until the action numbs you after 20 or so minutes. I have already admitted a bias against sci-fi. It's like the watered down version of horror's monsters / fear of the unknown. With the exception of the genre's true masterpiece, The Day the Earth Stood Still. And perhaps a couple others which I haven't seen yet (I didn't even get 5 minutes into War of the Worlds and I'm amazed I lasted 20 through Fantastic Voyage). Usually, the movies that inspire parody/rip offs are good. Like I said, the parody process does not indicate quality. It never has and it never will. All a movie being ripped-off proves is that the IDEA is novel. And what have I been saying this whole time? Strip it down to the bone: good ideas are not enough to make a movie. The effect has to work as well. All I see in your argument is a defense of the ideas. The ambition. And before that, we got introduced to the madness of the future. That's not really sputtering. The film constantly keeps you engaged. This movie's vision of the future is stupid. And I already said - repeatedly - that the film's ambitions and intentions may be great but what they did physically to try and realize them was not. Face it; they screwed up. And maybe it doesn't matter in the grand scheme BUT ONLY BECAUSE the film's fanbase is people like you. Because the reputation of cult films doesn't matter if they're no longer culturally relevant in the eyes of the public at large. Thus is the nature of cult films, it's like someone else owns them. Though it sure seems to get under your skin that I have an ax to grind against this infernal shitfest. I'm not budging on this. And you don't have to respect my opinion (I gather it's you fucking with my Karma rating- could you possibly be less mature?), most people don't. You just have to shut up. You know? We show each other that we get what the other is saying by not spinning around in circles constantly. It seems we both want to get the last word. Ask anyone around here who gets the last word... Just for kicks. |
|
|
|
Post by tylerdurden on Jul 7, 2010 6:30:13 GMT -5
I don't even fucking care at this point about this stupid argument. You've dragged out this argument so much, without even stating why you think it's a pile of shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jul 7, 2010 8:11:35 GMT -5
Calm down, kid. Seriously- grow up.
How could you possibly still be confused? I told you how many things are wrong with it, I have more than explained why it sucks and your refusal to accept it... not a flaw on my part. Hence why it's your refusal to accept and not mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by tylerdurden on Jul 10, 2010 16:03:37 GMT -5
got a bunch of lists today!
Ten Favorite Action Movies
1. Seven Samurai (also the first ever action movie)
2. The Matrix
3. Die Hard
4. Aliens
5. Terminator 2
6. The Terminator
7. Blade Runner
8. First Blood
9. The Dark Knight
10. Road Warrior
Ten Favorite Kubrick Movies
1. The Shining
2. Full Metal Jacket
3. Dr. Strangelove
4. A Clockwork Orange
5. Paths of Glory
6. 2001
7. Eyes Wide Shut
8. Spartacus
9.Lolita
10. Barry Lyndon
Ten Favorite Horror/Slasher Movies
1. The Shining
2. Halloween
3. The Exorcist
4. Child's Play
5. Alien
6. Psycho
7. Silence of the Lambs
8. A Nightmare on Elm Street
9. Friday the 13th
10. The Sixth Sense
Ten Favorite Hitchcock Movies
1. Rear Window
2. Vertigo
3. Psycho
4. The Birds
5. North by Northwest
6. Dial M for Murder
7. Strangers on a Train
8. Rebecca
9. Notorious
10. Shadow of a Doubt
|
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Jul 10, 2010 21:35:57 GMT -5
LOL. One of the best arguments on this forum (next to Jib being clueless about the Legend of the Guardians video. I agree with NP wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by tylerdurden on Jul 10, 2010 23:27:49 GMT -5
LOL. One of the best arguments on this forum (next to Jib being clueless about the Legend of the Guardians video. I agree with NP wholeheartedly. That's your prerogative. I wholeheartedly disagree, but you can think whatever you want to. |
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jul 11, 2010 2:04:51 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly agree with Steve... That's 3 against 1. Wait... 2.  The sci-fi and action genres are overrated anyway. Everyone knows it but as long as some people have to take it seriously, so will I. |
|
|
|
Post by tylerdurden on Jul 11, 2010 5:18:04 GMT -5
Most action movies are overrated. those 10 are really the only ones I like. Just like with sci-fi movies, action movies are only good when the characters and stories are good. Like The Matr-uh never mind  |
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Jul 11, 2010 21:43:34 GMT -5
My top ten movies..  1. Detroit Rock City 2. Cabin Fever 3. American History X 4. Terminator 2: Judgment Day 5. Dazed and Confused 6. Deadgirl 7. Hot Tub Time Machine 8. Kickass 9. The Crow 10. Sex Drive |
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Jul 11, 2010 22:09:51 GMT -5
Just an all around great debate by you guys though NP takes the cake. Durden man, you get very defensive towards movie. Nothin' wrong with that!
|
|
). Clearly a case of wishful thinking standing in for rationality. The plot of I Know What You Did Last Summer has similiarly been parodied hundreds of times. Is that amazing now, too? Song of the South is one of the biggest objects of ridicule in pop culture satirical history; does that mean it's not offensive anymore? How does one follow that kind of logic, exactly?
