I'm sorry that I buy crap.

Looking through your DVDAF collection, I'm not sure where you're coming from with your posts. You are aware that he never said, "every film that gets a mainstream release is crap," right? The guy you quoted, did you even bother to look at his collection? He has quite a few mainstream releases...the same ones you do, in fact (The Big Lebowski, Collateral, Saving Private Ryan, and so forth). I own those titles as well. However, none of us own Honey, Torque, or You Got Served.

My point is...everybody has mainstream films that they enjoy. Nobody has come in this thread and tried to say that, "if you watch any mainstream film, you're a jackass." His comment in no way implied that all mainstream films are crap. He simply said that the mainstream films that most people his age purchase are...and I'm inclined to agree with that to a small extent.

Don't get so defensive, and don't read so much into peoples' posts. There's a difference between the word "crap" and the word "mainstream," despite your efforts to read the former as the latter.

-JP

Is that how you view any criticism of something you say? Perhaps that's why your posts mostly come across as hopeless attempts at defensive argument.

As for my previous statement ....
"Simply the act of realizing that there is more in this world than what you already know, and being willing to explore beyond your current knowledge is the true sign of an "educated" person."


....your response tells us all we ever need to know about you.


<i>Elitist?</i> That's what you call someone who wants to learn more? That's how you view someone who realizes they don't know everything?

Sad, simply sad .....

Alright maybe there is a difference between crap and mainstream, but do you know a person who only buys Honey, 2Fast 2Furious, or Anacondas? Joe Six Pack buys the mainstream titles and theres nothing wrong with that. I hate even using the term Joe Six Pack. They aren't any less because they only buy mainstream and you aren't any better for buying foreign or old dvds.

I don't think any of us are claiming to be better because we buy 'foreign and old dvds.' Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there certainly is a lot of crap in theaters lately. For every Million Dollar Baby, there's a bit too many The Pacifiers for my taste. But look, it was #2 at the BO this weekend, so what seems like crap to me, was probably 90 minutes of enjoyment for a couple of million moviegoers.

I think what we have been trying to say, is that while mainstream may offer a broader base more entertainment value (thus the term mainstream), classic film can offer more artistic value. Just like Justin Timberlake vs. Bob Dylan. Is there anyone here who could deny that Dylan has done more for music? Sure Michael Bay may not have the artistic instinct of an Orson Welles, but his last 4 films have grossed about $675 million, so I don't think any studio execs are going to argue that his films have a general entertainment value. And for those people who think that we are downplaying you because you have no desire to see classic or foreign films, it's just a matter of the fact that you're closed attitude makes you come off like any other person who thinks that a movie is borring because it is black and white.

So in conclusion, there is nothing wrong with mainstream, but if people continue to have a growing negative attitude towards 'artsy' films (often without ever seeing one), then future generations will miss out on a whole lot of cinema. What would happen if we started shunning Dostoyevsky, Twain and Tolstoy, and 'Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus' started to become the base of national literature?

*cough* Million Dollar Baby sucked hard. Maybe even more than The Pacifier does...at least The Pacifier has no delusions of grandeur.

Have you seen the Pacifier?

I think the thing that me, and Ryu, Mike, and others are trying to say is that film was not created to be criticized, but to be enjoyed. If you are watching a movie for its artistic value, you are watching it for the wrong reason. Movies were created to entertain moviegoers by either creating an enjoyable experience, or allowing them to reflect on the story told upon the screen. Just because a film is "artsy" does not mean it does either of these things better than The Pacifier, which I will definitely watch once it hits pay cable, for the oh so lovely Brittany Snow.

What's going on here? Can't you folks just say that so-and-so has lousy taste in film without resorting to personal attacks or apologizing for your opinion? That's all that is necessary. Derailing a thread with an interesting topic because some folks can't take what they dish out is silly. Accept the fact that someone thinks your collection is pretentious or brain-dead and move on.

Wow. Just wow. I didn't know there were a specific set of reasons to watch movies...? It's also ridiculous to think that criticizing and enjoying films are mutually exclusive.

If a director makes a movie for entertainment's sake purely (going out on a limb, what I assume The Pacifier is) then perfect, anyone who wants to watch a film for entertainment's sake should watch it. Just as people who may be looking for something different (see: not better or worse) such as a movie that makes you think, or that uses different camera techniques should watch something along the lines of Bergman, Welles, Truffaut, or Kurosawa.

All art is subjective, so putting a definite criteria on what it's "supposed to do" is ignorant.

Hahaha, you're my new favorite person on the internet.

My thoughts exactly.

-JP

I never asked if you liked this movie.


I saw the trailer, and that alone was 2 minutes too many of Vin Diesel.


Can everyone just freakin relax for a minute here

:) Don't let this man scare you, young kids. My wife and I bonded on our first date when she asked me what my favorite movie was, and I said I really liked Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy. Turned out she was big fan too, and we were in our 20s.

A shout out to NatrlBornThrllr! Funny how age reveals a poor measure on intelligence. Don’t let ignorant geezers get you down. You go, JP!

Here come the "film is art" snobs! I like many of the classics, but to say that a director's first intent is to created art over entertainment is laughable. No one make a movie to say, "Hey, I can use 4200 different types of shots in this flick, and that will make it ART."

I think what many people fail to see here is that entertainment is an artform. Vaudeville, traveling musicians, even the circus. Each work to perfect an artform - whether it be comedy, music, dance, etc. Film is no different. Jerry Seinfeld's comedic delivery is a near-perfect artform (many would agree). Clapton's guitar playing abilities is art. Art should inspire, make you feel emotion - in the case of Kieslowski, you are obviously prompted to feel different emotions than a Michael Bay film. But it makes no difference, as long as you feel emotions,evoke the senses. People should not confuse that something is only art, or only for entertainment purposes. At least in my opinion.

rotfl

Now who's being closed minded?

I'm prretty sure a few of the the people in here who are defending current "mainstream" movies, have seen as many if not more of the classics that most of the 16-17 yr old people proclaiming their love for their Fanny and Alexander 5 Disc Criterion Collections.

Calling us closed-minded is probably not the most effective way to win the debate.

I'm 18 and last year I ditched school so I could be at Best Buy when it first opened to get my copy of Ed Wood, The first time it came around, I did get it.

I am a senior in H/S and I have a measly job at a skating rink and I would say that most of my checks go to DVD's , oh and Taco Bell!

My most recent purchase was Eraserhead from DL.com.

I just had to throw that in because I am still excited about it!

Anyway, I like all types of films. My favorite movie is Dawn of the Dead ('78), then The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and then Mulholland Dr.. Also The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari has recently become a favorite of mine. I really want to pick up the Fanny and Alexander box, but money is tight. I'm also really looking forward to getting The Adventures of Antoine Doniel box.

I try not to insult people's taste, but when someone tells me they love cinema, and then goes and by the fullscreen version of a widescreen film, and then says that subtitles are stupid, and then says a Classic movie sucks without any good reason, they come off as ignorant and need to be corrected. I believe in the preservation of a film to as close to the creator's vision as possible. And if someone disagrees with that with a well articulated and reasonable arguement, then how can I say they are wrong, other than showing them my well articulated and reasonable arguement? I will not insult them personally however, that is rude and inconsiderate.

In theory, yes, but of the past 5 or so movies Diesel has starred in, I saw them all and I was thoroughly dissapointed by each and every one. If you saw, say...5 Hitchcock movies and really did not like every one, I would not call you close minded about seeing more of his pictures. To each his own taste, but thanks anyways.

And the fact is, I see just about as many mainstream pictures as the average American. However, I also have a devout interest in learning about the history of film and exploring it in other countries as well. I will admit that I am very close-minded about horror films, both low-budget and mainstream, they just don't do it for me. If you looked at the last 100 movies I saw, I'm about as open-minded about film as one could be. If I know that I do not appreciate a director or actor's work, there is no reason for me, in my eyes, to continue to see their films when there is so much else out there.

Vin Diesel's last seven movies before The Pacifier. Just in case your statement was made without thought.

The Chronicles of Riddick (2004) .... Riddick
A Man Apart (2003) .... Sean Vetter
xXx (2002) .... Xander Cage
Knockaround Guys (2001) .... Taylor Reese
The Fast and the Furious (2001) .... Dominic Toretto
Pitch Black (2000) .... Richard B. Riddick
Boiler Room (2000) .... Chris Varick

No it was not, the only one on that list I like is Boiler Room, he actually acts in that film in my opinion. A Man Apart was ok but no replay value for me. If I saw any of the others on tv, I'd flip right through them. It's a shame because I know he has the ability to really break out - I can't wait to see him in the new Lumet movie - but he let himself be typecasted, because well, his movies were successful at the box office. Hopefully Find Me Guilty will open some doors for him.

No, no, you're MY favorite person on the internet.

[QUOTE=fliggil]I never asked if you liked this movie.

No, you didn't, but you held up Million Dollar Baby as the polar opposite of The Pacifier, the latter of which you obviously view as a piece of garbage. I was merely pointing out that to some people (i.e. me) stuff better suited to the Lifetime Network - Television for Women is worse than a mindless waste of time, because at least with the mindless waste of time, you don't have people calling it the best thing since sliced bread.