DeputyDave

Ooooh Boy, a chance to spread the hate that spews from my gut like bile...

I hate: Snobs who wish DVD players were still $ 500 + and only the truly worthy could enjoy the format.

I hate: People who claim a movie is "the worst movie in history" just to cause controversy. I will go to my grave denying that some people out there think Fargo, Matrix, Fight Club, and too many others to mention are the worst ever. I would never say that someone has to like those movies but they are bold faced liers if they claim they are the worst (or have a very limited exposure to movies).

I hate: (This one is personal because several of my friends fall into this catagory, so I hate 'em) People who buy (and ONLY buy) every blockbuster that comes along. All the Austin Powers and Scary Movies and Screams, but not one old catalog title, not one off the beaten track Indy. Like sheep they line up weekly to buy the hits, whether they like them or not.


I hate: Going #2 in public toilets.

Saxofonix

ALL of the above.

funkyryno

littlefuzzy

"We have met the enemy, and they are us..."

I voted for #1, although that can apply to the reverse snob, as well, who thinks that no silent/mono/black & white/foreign/older film is worth watching, only the latest, greatest popcorn blockbusters.

Really, I think many people on this board are a mixture of some or all of those, I personally am a huge Anime fan, I like many sci-fi and fantasy films, and I have recently been picking up some of the "B" horror/gore movies, like Evil Toons, Dr. Giggles, Bad Taste, and so forth. I have Disney films, Classics, Pauly Shore movies, Musicals, some of the latest Blockbusters (I will get MIBII, Goldmember, etc., when I can,) Wire-Fu films, Action, Drama, Comedy, and so forth.

I have Doctor Dolittle (1967) next to Doctor Zhivago. I have Cabin Boy, The Cable Guy, Caligula (Unrated,) Cast Away, Caveman, and Chasing Amy all in a row. Halloween is next to Harry Potter. I have Night of the Living Dead, Opera, The Patriot, Porky's/Porky's Two and The Punisher all together. Tora! Tora! Tora! has The Time Machine (remake) on one side, and Total Recall on the other.

Most of us are probably a little bit snobbish about our tastes, even those who think all 4 choices on the poll are bad. How many of us are snobbish towards someone who knows they are missing the director's intent, or part of the picture, but still prefer full-frame or Pan & Scan?

ckolchak

Jim Lee

This thread is too funny

What rubs me the wrong way is people with closed minds.

1. Film snobs who wouldn't know a quality film without the latest Sight & Sound poll/review.

2. Film slobs who automatically dismiss films made before 1980, in Black & White, Subtitled, etc.

HurricaneKicker

I dont know about 'Rocked", but Face Off was a Damn good action movie. As was "The Postman" which was named as a jab in one of the questions. other good ones high on my list...Armaggedeon, ID4, The Rock,Desperado,The Scorpion King,Spiderman,Waterworld,The Matrix,Star Trek, ect ect...These are the type Of movies I love more than anything . I also have movies like the classic Universal Monster movies and The 50`s Hammer monster movies. I dont care for foreign films and anything with subtitles. I love stupid comedies because they make me laugh, like anything by Adam Sandler...The Waterboy,Mr Deeds,The Wedding Singer ect ect( Pauley Shore is going a little too far! ) Laughing is good for the soul and keeps you healthy and young! The bottom line is no one should make you feel bad about the type of films you like to watch.Im not an idiot or a moron because I dont like subtitles or foreign films. Ive watched them and dont care for them. Only I know what I like, and Im not going to buy and keep a movie just because some snob says Im an idiot for not liking it. The bottom line is if you paid for it and enjoy it, thats all that matters and the only one you have to please is yourself!!!

Goat3001

Whats wrong with this? Am I misundertanding this? Whats wrong with liking classics like Citizen Kane and Apocolypse Now but also liking Speed 2 and The Postman?

BizRodian

- OAR advocats who get pissy when an old movie isn't remixed into 5.1, I find that hypocritcal. I am an OAR advocate, and I prefer films in their original sound too (unless a director approves the new sound or something.)
- People who refuse to watch anything different. That means anything.
- People who think dubbing of a foreign film is evil in live action, but not in animated (I don't get this! you don't watch dubbing so you get the original performance how it was intended, it doesn't matter if the character is drawn or not!)
- People who buy films only as demos. "Pearl Harbor sucks! but the fight scene will work out my sub! I'll buy both version!"
- Anyone who doesn't understand OAR. If you want you picture altered, fine, I think you're a c***, but I'll respect your opinon. But if you don't understand, then f*** off!
- People who think all anime is equal, or all action films are equal, or all dramas are. When anime ranges just as much as live action. There are crappy Michael Bay action films, and there are good, Steven Speilberg action films, there are crappy chick flick dramas, and there are smart, intelegent dramas.
- People who think of me lesser because I don't have a 32 inch or larger TV. Get over it, I've been collecting DVDs since '98. I'll get a big TV one day, right now I'll stick with my 20 inch because it works.

raithen

So what do you feel about Beatles albums presented in mono or stereo? There are purists who believe that the albums should be in mono. There are those who feel that the stereo releases represent the sound as it was intended to be. Is it fair to say that one is expanding their horizons while the other is in a state of perpetual ignorance or denial?

Also, who is to say that all horizons should be expanded? Do we really need a 5.1 or DTS mix of Lawrence Of Arabia? Would it be expanding our horizons to see Citizen Kane colorized?

Is a person who has broader tastes in genres "better" or more "cultured" than one who has a more selective palate? Are they worse?

When we start classifying what would be "expanding" horizons I think we are walking down the path of elitism. Of course, there are people out there who refuse to even attempt to try to digest something outside their perceived likes/dislikes, but who are we to judge and who is to say they are right or wrong for having their narrow/broad opinions? Who cares??

Be eclectic. Be narrow. Be the happy medium between the two. Be yourself.

Quote:

I like dumb movies, but I like other kinds as well. If lots more people liked them too, I wouldn't have so much trouble seeing them. When we saw The Fast and the Furious, the theater was full. On the other hand, in the last couple of months we've seen Citizen Kane, The Secretary, The Godfather, and Metropolis in a new "art" theater. There were always under a dozen people in the audience. I don't think that theater will last very long.

Frankly, the type of film enthusiast that bothers me the most are those who thumb their noses at others for their taste in movies. I'm sick of those who are blinded by other opinions by "critics" or peers - as if Citizen Kane is the de facto pinnacle of cinema. If someone feels that Armageddon (the de facto snob whipping boy) is a better film then CK - so what. Frankly, I like both movies, but I generally would prefer to sit down and watch the latter. Rake me over the coals!

Nothing irks me more than people who will try to tell you that a "film" is different from a "movie". And add to that those who say, "my favourite movie is The Goonies, but the best movie I've ever seen is All Quiet On The Western Front". I'm sorry, but that mentality seems ridiculous to me. The best movie is your favourite movie. Art is about reaction and emotive response - not about technique and innovation. The latter suggests how a film was made and what impact it may have had on future films - not how it made an impact on you personally. I guess I just detest those who try to impress others with comments such as those above.

I'm sure there may be some arguments about this last paragraph - it's kind of an open interpretation "best" and "favourite", but that's the context I which I interpret the words.

Of course, it's all subjective in the end (duh), but I think that people who worry about what other people like/dislike can be just as irritating as the JSP's of the world. Does that make me a snob or slightly hypocritical that I am irritated by particular cinema going breeds? Perhaps it does. But when it comes down to it, the only opinion I care about when it comes to art is my own - and that is how it should be. Snob or not.

-matt

Nick Danger

You are deliberately confusing two issues: whether people are willing to try something new and different, and whether music and movies should be altered.

I'd prefer that Kane weren't colorized. I don't mind Bach being played on modern instruments. I thought the Bladerunner director's cut was a big improvement. I won't be buying the Star Wars director's cut. I like both the mono and stereo versions of the Beatles. I take it on a case-by-case basis.

If I came across as someone who thumbs his nose at someone else's taste in movies, I apologize. It's I can't disagree with anyone else's tastes. It's people's refusal to even try something new that bugs me.

raithen

Am I confusing two issues? As I said previously, there are those who feel that the Beatles records that were released as mono are the way they are supposed to sound - but then there are those who bought the stereo releases who feel that that is the only way to listen to them. It's a matter of perspective. Stereo obviously provides a richer sound landscape, but does that necessarily make it "better" or a broader "horizon" to listen to? Does someone have to accept one or the other release, or both?? Is the mono release the "true" intention or is the stereo release the "true" version? Which is altered? Do you have to experience both? Personally, I will only listen to the stereo releases - I won't touch the mono ones (ever again). Does that make my horizons limited? My perception is that mono only shows a limited facet of the Beatles music - stereo provides more dimensions, and is therefore the only way to truly experience the music. I've tried the mono source, but hated it. Did I really expand my horizons? Or did I simply try something and then condemn it? I won't touch mono recordings if there's a stereo release - am I close-minded? Or am I simply in tune with my personal tastes?

You make it clear that your father was content with his old stereo system, but you imply that he had never listened to his music on a "good" stereo system because he didn't want to know what he was missing. Are you certain he had never experienced a better system before? Perhaps he did know what he was missing, but was quite content with the sound the old system was providing. He had experienced a crisper system, but preferred otherwise. Do you see the correlation I'm making now with the idea of not necessarily alteration - but whether a newer technical process which can supposedly enrich the original source material is truly an expansion of one's horizons?

And as much as you like to deny it, "new and different" can and does mean "altered, re-edited, restored, etc" in many cases. It's the same issue - but I'm challenging your idea from that angle.

You'd be hard pressed to find many who would actually prefer Citizen Kane colorized, but I think you see my point. I may be talking about alteration here, but I'm still talking about "expanding horizons".

You won't be buying the Star Wars: Special Edition, but will you buy SW with a DD 5.1 EX track? Do you think that it's expanding your horizons to listen to this new mix of the original Dolby Stereo sound? You talk about case-by-case basis' - are you saying that sometimes it's good to expand your horizons, but sometimes it's good to be limiting? You'd "prefer" CK not be colorized - but would you honestly give it a chance? Or would you piss on the new print like most of us would??

But let's ignore alterations for the moment, how about discussing people who prefer not to watch films with subtitles. Are they truly not expanding their horizons? If subs are distracting and it takes them out of the film experience, how can you possibly say they are not expanding their horizons? Some people have a hard time watching film and "reading" it - it's a simple waste of time to watch a movie if you know you won't be able to "get into it". It's not simply a distaste for all films that are foreign - it's a simple question of whether people enjoy the subtitle format (personally, I do).

Sometimes people are quite comfortable with their tastes. I know I can't stand country music, and I won't give anything in that genre a chance. Am I not expanding my horizons? By your definition, I'm not. Personally, I know that the country sound is not something that interests me - of course, I haven't listened to every band out there who plays in that style, but I am sure of my taste.

What I'm trying to get at here is that the definition of "expanding horizons" is completely subjective - and if you attempt to apply it, you can come across like a snob.

While I agree that people shouldn't dismiss things they know absolutely nothing about, I think it's unfair to dismiss people who won't watch foreign films because of a legitimate personal choice.

Sorry if I ran around in circles there, but I don't think I'm deliberately confusing issues. Merely presenting a counterpoint to your argument.

-matt

lordzeppelin

I'm an equal opportunity *******. I could give a **** about anything anyone has to say about what I watch. I have Men At Work as one of my favorite films ever, and it's a piece of trash compared to something the scope of the Last Emperor.

Who do I dislike most? People who just can't let other people enjoy what they want. If you don't like what I'm watching, then la-de-****in'-da. The people that piss me off are the ones who go into threads about problems with a disc or something and start complaining about how they hate the movie, and don't see why anyone would buy it. Get a life.

Other than that, I rather enjoy debating and laughing and discussing with the lot of you...

edited to add...WOW! RAITHEN LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm honored to be posting under you, brother!

gcribbs

The non-sequitur, logic-defying, how-the-hell-does-he-define-quality movie geek who (impossibly) has the CITIZEN KANE DVD next to SPEED 2: CRUISE CONTROL & APOCALYPSE NOW next to THE POSTMAN, and can't fathom what the problem is...

so Speed 2 should not be next to Citizen Kane

You are not one of those alphabetize your dvd's people are you

I own a very strange group of movies and I really enjoy them so I do not care that much if the movie is not well thought of by critics.

dave955

Premises:

(1) I care what kind of movies I am able to see.

(2) The kind of movies I am able to see is a function of commercial viability.

(3) Commercial viability is a function of other's opinions about art.

Argument given (1)-(3):

(4) It is sensible to care about others' tastes.

I'm curious what other people think about the following issue: do we as a culture make an appropriately large investment in cultivating those tastes?

Filmmaker

Originally posted by Goat3001:
Whats wrong with this? Am I misundertanding this? Whats wrong with liking classics like Citizen Kane and Apocolypse Now but also liking Speed 2 and The Postman?

Originally posted by gcribbs:
so Speed 2 should not be next to Citizen Kane

You are not one of those alphabetize your dvd's people are you

WHOA! Guys, guys, guys, hold up! I'm not judging you by placing this as an option on the list. Truth be told, my collection mirrors this mindset more closely than any of the other three, but the fact still stands, I have been called to task for it several times in the past by other DVD collectors who feel differently about what constitutes a valid collection and/or grasp of film appreciation. I can't vilify you for liking both CITIZEN KANE and SPEED 2, because I'd have to vilify myself first for the same "crime". Having said this, we also have to recognize that some DVDTalkers, right or wrong, are repelled by our type of cinematic taste--in fact, 12 of them, by last count...

Steve Phillips

The kind who go insane with anger when an Ernest movie gets released in open matte yet think it is perfectly OK to crop old TV shows to 1:78 to 1, even if it cuts the heads off the actors..

Filmmaker

Steve, that wasn't so much of an issue a year ago when I created this poll but, agreed, it does make for a most annoying type of DVD fan. Oh, and Warner Bros., since Pennywise doesn't care much for the sun, kindly allow me to stick my faulty-1.78:1, edited-down, overall p.o.s. "Stephen King's IT" DVD where your sun never shines...

raithen

In other words, it is sensible to care about people's tastes in commercially viable films. Hence, it is sensible to gauge one's opinion against the opinions of the machine. Cough.

Frankly, I could care less about commercial viability - my taste in art is based on subjective, emotive response. Not whether my "subjective, emotive response" is in tune with commercial viability - or other people's opinions.

We can debate whether the films I'm able to see are born from commercial viability or not, but my point is that, regardless of whether manipulated by the machine or not, my own subjective analysis is the only opinion I really care about.

-matt

Rypro 525

according to the dvdfile review, the director intended it to be 178

dave955

But that is exactly my argument.

Suppose that my opinion is completely independent of everyone else's opinions. Nevertheless, my ability to have an opinion is determined by whether the film is made in the first place. Commercial viability dictates this.

I don't see how you make the leap from (a) "it is sensible to care about people's tastes" to (b) "it is sensible to gauge one's opinion against others' opinions." While I believe (b) is true, it isn't at all related to the argument. If the opposite of (b) is what you meant when you said

then we are talking past each other.

My argument was simply meant to show that in a world where my tastes are completely independent of everyone else's tastes, it is still sensible to care about others' opinions for purely selfish reasons.

Vampyr

I voted: The unapologetic, naive and frustratingly vapid movie buff who takes the greatest of pleasure in shouting to the world that he owns every one of the FRIDAY THE 13TH series and could claim the same about those funny-as-sh*t Pauly Shore flicks, if they'd just get around to releasing them, those studio dolts...

But I really stopped buy to see if I was personally named as "The Type of DVD Fan Who Rubs Anyone In The Forum the Wrong Way?" So far the answer is "no" I'm a bit disappointed actually, since it may indicate that I'm loosing my "movie snob" status

wendersfan

I have to disagree with this. "Favorite" and "best" can be distinguished. Sometimes something is a favorite because of very specific, idiosyncratic reasons. For example, a friend of mine's favorite song is "In the Year 2525", not because he thinks it's such a great song, but because that was the song playing on the radio when he found out he wasn't being shipped to Vietnam, but Germany instead.

My favorite movie is Miller's Crossing. I wouldn't claim that it's the best movie ever made, but it's the one that I enjoy the most, probably for very personal reasons - I love gangster movies, and it's simultaneously a great homage to and parody of gangster movies. I am also well aware of it's weaknesses - everything's too heavily stylized, mainly. I would like to think I have enough objectivity and, well, taste, to understand that Last Year At Marienbad (for example) might be a better movie, objectively, but it doesn't appeal to me as much on a personal level, for reasons that are specific to me alone.

THORN

the only collector who bugs me is the collector who purchases movies in non-OAR, when both are available.

anyone who purches a non-OAR film should be drug out in the street and have both there eyes burned out with a red hot poker

Filmmaker

Originally posted by Rypro 525:
according to the dvdfile review, the director intended it to be 178

Yes, but they don't cite where they came by this insight and frankly, judging by what I perceive to be the ill-fit of the 1.78:1 matting, I don't buy it. Though I haven't personally listened to the commentary track (every time I hold the disc in my hands, I can't help but grunt with disgust and put it back on the shelf...maybe one day...), I've heard that director Wallace states on it that he would have prefered to film IT in 2.35:1, but I have not heard that he specifically mentions intentionally framing the miniseries for 1.78:1. If I am wrong, please provide the proof so that I can scratch one thing off my long "Reasons to Hate the 'Stephen King's IT' DVD" list...