Clerks II.

[CptStern]

Typo dude, sorry. I know he is a director of course

In the same regard, just because you think his movies are orgasmic does not make it so. You are stating your opinion as fact, whereas I am stating my opinion.

it is fact, I've listed why it is fact ..it is not my opinion

Art is in the eye of the beholder man.

nope, that is a misconception ..layman opinion and opinion based on knowledge accumalted through years of research/study/experience are not equal. It's like saying a man off the street's opinion on say the Mona Lisa is equal to that of a person with a phd in art history specifically the renaissance

Hah, and I totally misread the first comment you made that I quoted. I thought you were saying something to the effect of "Well you can think that but I can think otherwise." But you aren't instead you are saying "Well you can think that but you are wrong." Hahahaha, you are quite ridiculously opinionated you know. :upstare:

it's not opinion, it's fact ..Kubricks accolades speak for themselves

Kubrick isn't really considered one of the best directors of all time by most people I know,

immaterial

nor do I care who considers him this.

you've just written yourself out of this argument by casually discounting the opinion of people who are knowledgeable in this area with no justification except that you're not interested in their opinions

Just because you want to have supersex with him doesn't make him the best director ever. Its just up to the person who watches his films.

absolutely not, the common film-goer has no clue about the art behind film, all they relate to is based on personal experience that has absolutely nothing to do with film ..critics/historains/curators etc all have an informed opinion, the average guy on the street does not

You can't just say "Oh he is unquestionably the best director evar."

putting words in my mouth, I never said that

You can say "He is really good and I think so because he has amazing strengths in -blah blah and blah-

my opinion is meaningless ..but I'm not giving my opinion

" But you can't diminish other's opinions about how mediocre he is because for whatever reason you think you are above them.

I dont think I'm above anyone, that's your opinion not mine ..that didnt play into why I think kevin smith is not in the same league as Kubrick, but you cant see that because you're too busy looking for the negative in every post I make

The same goes for any art form of any type. Kubrick has a lot of appeal, but just because your opinion lies with a lot of other people's doesn't mean it means jack shit more than mine.

I am sorry but you are not qualified to make an informed opinion on film if you dont have the proper background ..that's just silly, it's like asking someone who only uses a computer for reading emails to critique Internet culture ..or asking someone who have velvet paintings of Elvis in his house to comment on the sistine chapel ...what could they possibly say that's of any worth? "it's pretty"?

And I can make fun of you for your tastes and you can make fun of me for mine. But quit with the factual speaking, becuase you're full of shit.

and you're qualified to say I'm full of shit when it comes to film or any other subject? please, get over yourself and stop being a dickhead

 

[Gray Fox]

I'm not ignoring you I'm giving you the opportunity to bow out gracefully from this topic ...but if you insist

Your not beeing gracefull here, your simply degradig me by default without any proper reason.

there always those who will dislike any given thing at any given time ..still doesnt negate universal appeal

In my opinion it does, since it's not universal anymore, but universal appeal is imo impossible. The real genius of the Beatles was how they succesfull managed to still remain original, and tackle a large viarity of subjects while laying the groundwork for many future bands, but they did not have universal appal by any means, nor do Kubrick or Wells.
Here is an article, that explains my opinion a little better( I find it appeals to movies just as much) :
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/29/144422.php

sigh, the beatles were in front of the queen twice ...once because of a Command Performance (1963, the queen specifically chose the beatles), and a second time when they were awarded the Order of the British Empire medal (1965)

Okay if that is true then I was wrong, and this point also negates my previous one to a certain degree.

heh comparing me to the "old mob" is hilarious ..Smith is in the same age group as I am. Still I see your point but it doesnt apply here ..he will never have universal appeal because his movies are too much in a specific niche (which in itself negates the "universal" in "universal appeal"). Smith's films dont have the wide scope of a DeMille film, or the artistic flair of a Bunel film or the beautiful simplicity of a fellini film ..I can guarentee you were you to compare smith to some of cinema's great he'd laugh at you ...he's good but not that good

Kubrick doesn't have universal appeal either, you will find only a select few can truly enjoy his works. But he is still genius, simply because even people who do not nesesairly enjoy his work can see why he is a genius, why his works are so important to the arts, and why they have had so much influence.
Now Smith is to an extent niche but when even Gorgonzola
can see the brilliance in his movies, and even specifically mentiones the script beeing brilliant, then you know he is doing something good. Now IMO Smith still has more wide appeal then Kubrick, and the reason for that is that he makes the threashold much lower for people to understand his movies, where as Kubirck makes no compromises, and even sacrifices certain aspects to get to his goal. Now he certainly is brilliant, but why is smith so much less because he chooses a different path, a path that does get the essential message across without whoring itself out or insulting his viewers by spoonfeeding them.

often coming across as set up and as if the actors are just reading parts of a larger monologue

I simply disagree with you on that, and I actually think kubrick suffers more from that in some movies like space oddyssee, where it's clear he sacrifises his character for the greater good. And I'm not the only one, surprisingly Gorgonzola
agrees with me, where as when you look at his and of many other reviews on clerks, they all clearly mention how real the character are.

who exactly are these "many": burden of proof

I meant all the people that adore him, especially a lot of young people, his movies are popular, he gives speeches in universities, his movies get good reviews. So thats why I think many people like him and think his scripts are brilliant.

I failed to see the genius of whom? who are you talking about?

I meant you fail to see the genius in Smith, you know just like many before you critised people that later were tought of as brilliant

come on man:

A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Dr. Strangelove, The Shining, Lolita, Spartacus, Full Metal Jacket ...not one of Smith's films come close to any of Kubricks ..theyre on a separate level entirely

I cannot counter that because I agree to a certain degree, those are better movies than any of Smith, kubrick is a better director. But A. I can understand if other people find him as good if not bettert hen kubrick, and B I find Smith as good as Kubrick when it comes to the aspects of the scipt, both can write incredible funny scripts with multiple meanings that you can enjoy over and over and each time discover something new there.

they must have some quality for them to endure for so long ..and like him or not Elvis was a genius ..I dont particularily like his music but I'd be a fool to dismiss his contribution to popular culture

Elvis was mostly famous because he was white, thats mostly it. He just took black music and became famous, he did not really pave the way for other artists, he did inspire a lot of people I have to give him that, as far as the bible go's, their survival isn't in their genius, it's because of human stubborn nature. I think they are proof enough that transending generations isn't in itself enough to proof genius.

you're talking about your personal opinion ..it doesnt make it valid just because you believe in it ...for consensus you need to look at the people best suited to judge a film's merit ..it's sure as hell not the audience

But my opinion is shared by many, even people with renowned people with a lot of knowledge of Film, they also regard him as someone with brilliant scripts.
They certainy don't put him overall up there with Kubrick.

Man, you are one whiny dude. You prefering a shitty movie over one of the best horror suspense movies ever made is hilarious. If you can't take a joke about it, I suggest you disconnect your internet cord and never put it back in. I also suggest you never leave your house. :stare:

Maybe now I understand why Stern is so hellbent on proving you wrong. I can't say I'm going to read those rants myself



Jesus dude, is it almost that time of month? When did I say you were a Kevin Smith fanboy? I DIDN'T, SO F*CK OFF! Christ you are whiny

I may be whiney but I have actually contributed to this thread and the discussion, you're just a troll. So take your own advice.

 

[Yuri]

Would you f*cking quit it with the quote warring? Christ dude you turned this whole thing into a personal attack. I said I didn't like Kubrick, and you had the dickness to say that I was wrong about my opinion. They are OPINIONS Stern, leave me the hell alone.

How am I being a dickhead by saying that you cannot prove if some director is "one of the best?" I don't understand, Stern. I don't like Kubrick, I don't have to like Kubrick, and no one can be considered "one of the best" except in the eyes of the individual. You can't prove bullshit like that. It is not a "proven" thing to say. No one has the authority to prove such shit.

No matter what the art form, it is up to the individual to decide if they like it or not. It is impossible to label people as "bests" and "worsts" because their talents are not based on fact, but instead by the opinion of their audience. It doesn't matter who the specific audience member is, whether a guy who fills potholes every day or some scholar who knows everything about the f*cking moon. The scholar cannot call the other stupid because the pothole guy liked a movie he didn't like. No matter what the artwork is, its guaranteed that at least one person will love it and one person will hate it. And neither of their opinions mean anything more than the other's.

Who gives a shit what anyone does for a living? No one in this world has the authority to tell me what art is the best and which is the worst. If you want to suckle at their egotistical tits than fine, but don't order other people to be such mindless opinionless culture-dependant drones. Its not silly for someone who isn't a scholar on Mars dust to watch Mars Attacks! and think its awesome, nor think its terrible.

Man, you are quite opinionated and full of yourself. Not everyone who disagrees with you is uncultured and less intelligent than yourself. :upstare:



I'm not arguing this any further because its pointless and stupid. I'm going to like the things I like and dislike the things I dislike and I'm not going to belittle other people's opinions about them. I will comment when somebody likes AVP over Alien, but they can think that as much as they would like, no one has the authority to tell them otherwise. There is no "right and wrong" when coming to opinions about f*cking movies. I don't like Smith or Kubrick, and this doesn't make me any more cultured or less cultured than anyone who does. Whenever I make a comment on how much I dislike an art form, its mostly in jest and its really just a joke. You can like what you like.

I may be whiney but I have actually contributed to this thread and the discussion, you're just a troll. So take your own advice.

What is your problem? I never said you were a Kevin Smith fanboy (yet you gnashed your teeth at me for it), and I made fun of you because of some insignificant movie opinions. Leave me alone, asshole, I did nothing to you. :|

Seriously, you might want to look into Uterol PMS Relief. It just may help you out with your whiny rabidness, psycho.

 

[Gray Fox]

What is your problem? I never said you were a Kevin Smith fanboy (yet you gnashed your teeth at me for it), and I made fun of you because of some insignificant movie opinions. Leave me alone, asshole, I did nothing to you. :|

Seriously, you might want to look into Uterol PMS Relief. It just may help you out with your whiny rabidness, psycho.

Please don't ever say "Kubrick" and "Brilliance" in the same sentence without that "don't" or "is not."

Man, being a hardcore Kevin Smith fanboy is one thing, but being a Kubrick one is another.
(

You may very well not have meant me, but when you say this in the middle of a discussion between me and stern where I am explaining why I find Smith to be genius and he is explaing why Kubrick is a genius and smoth not. Then you shouldn't be surprised if I see it that way. Further more you insult me and then find it odd that I respond back to you. Thats very hypocritical, when you insult someone you cannot expect them not to respond, with an insult you are basicly begging for it.

 

[CptStern]

Would you f*cking quit it with the quote warring? Christ dude you turned this whole thing into a personal attack.

what? it was you not me ...man seriously what the **** are you doing? I didnt turn this into a personal attack you did ..wtf how can you flip flop so much?

I said I didn't like Kubrick, and you had the dickness to say that I was wrong about my opinion. They are OPINIONS Stern, leave me the hell alone.

ffs you pull shit out of the thin air, I've said coulntless times that opinions are fine so long as you dont try to present them as fact

How am I being a dickhead by saying that you cannot prove if some director is "one of the best?"

I've proved over and over again that he is ..when you're recognised by your peers it has some weight to it, it matters because those are the people that share the same insight into cinematography as you do

I don't understand, Stern. I don't like Kubrick, I don't have to like Kubrick,

I never said you did ..I just said that it is your opinion that he isnt great, that his movies are just ..."bleh"

and no one can be considered "one of the best" except in the eyes of the individual. You can't prove bullshit like that. It is not a "proven" thing to say. No one has the authority to prove such shit.

nonsense ..if that were true Stephen king would be the greatest author of all time, Brittney Spears would have a masters in music and would be compared to mozart, beethoven etc, Star wars would be considered a the epitome of art in film and Citizen kane would be "too complicated"

No matter what the art form, it is up to the individual to decide if they like it or not.

that's personal opinion, that doesnt validate or invalidate the art work being viewed ..only the artist and his peers can do that. The viewer generally is in a vacuum when viewing art for the first time ..they rarely understand the time period, the social/political implications of the period and generaly only have superficial knowledge of how to interpret a work of art

It is impossible to label people as "bests" and "worsts" because their talents are not based on fact, but instead by the opinion of their audience.

I agree when it comes to public polls however all of the criteria I've presented on Kubric comes for his peers ..not the unwashed masses who wouldnt know the difference between Esenstein and the guy who came up with the theory of relativity

It doesn't matter who the specific audience member is, whether a guy who fills potholes every day or some scholar who knows everything about the f*cking moon. The scholar cannot call the other stupid because the pothole guy liked a movie he didn't like. No matter what the artwork is, its guaranteed that at least one person will love it and one person will hate it. And neither of their opinions mean anything more than the other's.

oh come on you cant possibly believe that ..are you saying that if 2 people view say a rembrandt and one is an art critic and the other is guy who's exposure to art usually entails visits to his local bar that their opinions are just as valid ..when the art critic marvels at Rembrandt's use of chiaroscuro, or how the political problems of the time prompted the artist to make a poignant but hidden message in the The Raising of Lazarus that caused an uproar when it was first exhibited? ...come on, sometimes I think you disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing

Who gives a shit what anyone does for a living?

No one in this world has the authority to tell me what art is the best and which is the worst.

yes they do ...would you buy medicine from some guy on the street corner? If you need advice on a specific computer problem will you ask Sam the local butcher or will you seek out someone who actually knows of what he's talking about? why is art any different?

If you want to suckle at their egotistical tits than fine,

better still ..I'll just go back to every art student I've ever had and tell them to disregard everything I've taught them over the years because a person who flips burgers at McD's POV is just as valid as mine?

but don't order other people to be such mindless opinionless culture-dependant drones.

yes that must be it, because the com,mon man has his finger on the pulse of culture ...most people are stupid and couldnt tell you the difference between Cubism and Impressionism, why would I ever seek their opinion when it comes to art when they obviously havent a clue?

Its not silly for someone who isn't a scholar on Mars dust to watch Mars Attacks! and think its awesome, nor think its terrible.

Man, you are quite opinionated and full of yourself. Not everyone who disagrees with you is uncultured and less intelligent than yourself. :upstare:

your words not mine, I have never stated that anyone who disagrees with me is uncultured ..man you're just looking for shit where none exists

I'm not arguing this any further because its pointless and stupid. I'm going to like the things I like and dislike the things I dislike and I'm not going to belittle other people's opinions about them. I will comment when somebody likes AVP over Alien, but they can think that as much as they would like, no one has the authority to tell them otherwise. There is no "right and wrong" when coming to opinions about f*cking movies. I don't like Smith or Kubrick, and this doesn't make me any more cultured or less cultured than anyone who does. Whenever I make a comment on how much I dislike an art form, its mostly in jest and its really just a joke. You can like what you like.

like, dislike anything and everything you want, I really couldnt care less ...however dont start mixing opinion for fact ..you said most of Kubricks films suck ..and that's fine ...you think they suck but that's just your opinion ..it does NOT make it true



What is your problem? I never said you were a Kevin Smith fanboy (yet you gnashed your teeth at me for it), and I made fun of you because of some insignificant movie opinions. Leave me alone, asshole, I did nothing to you. :|[/QUOTE]

 

[Yuri]

OH NO I made a crack that Kubrick isn't that great! I simply must be a forum troll!!

So basically you were offended when I made a crack, directed at Stern, about how Kubrick is not that great. Which was in response to him making a crack at you about how Smith isn't that great (where he mentioned Kubrick.)?

So if you said something is great, and somebody said "OMG THAT SUCKS COMPARED TO THIS OTHER THING!" and then a third person says "OH MAN THAT OTHER THING JUST SUCKS LOL," you get offended?

Do you also get offended when people say "gosh darn it?" Or when somebody says "Hey, your fly is unzipped." Or something equally not offensive?



You are REALLY good at IGNORING MY ENTIRE POINT, Stern.

You said that you "proved" that Kubrick was one of the best directors of all time. Basically, that means that anyone who's opinion is otherwise is wrong.

My opinion is otherwise, and you said I was wrong. You said that where I may not think Kubrick is great, the fact remains that Kubrick is great. You said you "proved" that Kubrick was better than Smith.

I stated that this was my opinion and NOTHING MORE. I also stated that your love for Kubrick was opinion and NOTHING MORE.

Talk about flip flops, you are the one who flip flopped on me, you are the one who "proved that Kubrick is one of the greats" yet yells at me for stating opinion is fact (where?). IT IS YOUR OPINION THAT KUBRICK IS ONE OF THE GREATS, NOTHING MORE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT HE IS NOT, NOTHING MORE. I NEVER SAID THAT MY OPINION ON KUBRICK WAS FACT! YOU DID!

You tried to prove that Kubrick was one of the greats, you are trying to prove that Kubrick is better than Smith. You are presenting your opinions as facts. All I did was state my opinion that Kubrick isn't that great. Who did the flip flopping?



And art teacher or not, Stern, you aren't teaching kids how to like art that you like, are you? Shouldn't you be teaching kids what art is about and how to make art and analyze it? I sincerely hope you didn't say "This artist is crap, this artist is the best." :|


Look what I found

I've proved over and over again that he is .. [...]

it's not opinion, it's fact ..Kubricks accolades speak for themselves

I never said anything about Kubrick being factually mediocre, yet you said he was factually great. And you say I did the flip flopping.

nonsense ..if that were true Stephen king would be the greatest author of all time, Brittney Spears would have a masters in music and would be compared to mozart, beethoven etc, Star wars would be considered a the epitome of art in film and Citizen kane would be "too complicated"

ARGH WHEN DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE MAJORITY?!

If someone wants to think that Spears is the goddess of music then FINE THAT IS THEIR OPINION! It is no more or less important than anyone else's goddamn opinion.



I don't let art professors and film critics tell me what is better than other things. I didn't go to four years of cinematography school or drawing school or anything like that, but people who have do not have any authority over me. Just because you know more about movie production and acting does not make your opinion any less valid than mine or pothole guy. At all. No one has the authority to tell people what sorts of art are good and bad.

 

[Gray Fox]

OH NO I made a crack that Kubrick isn't that great! I simply must be a forum troll!!

So basically you were offended when I made a crack, directed at Stern, about how Kubrick is not that great. Which was in response to him making a crack at you about how Smith isn't that great (where he mentioned Kubrick.)?

So if you said something is great, and somebody said "OMG THAT SUCKS COMPARED TO THIS OTHER THING!" and then a third person says "OH MAN THAT OTHER THING JUST SUCKS LOL," you get offended?

Do you also get offended when people say "gosh darn it?" Or when somebody says "Hey, your fly is unzipped." Or something equally not offensive?

You are troll because you leave insulting comments without any further explenation. They meerly seem to be there to insight further flames.
Furthermore the abovementioned is not the reason I thought you directed the fanboi comment at me, it's this:

Originally Posted by Erestheux
Please don't ever say "Kubrick" and "Brilliance" in the same sentence without that "don't" or "is not."

Man, being a hardcore Kevin Smith fanboy is one thing, but being a Kubrick one is another.

Seeing the argument me and Stern were having it's logical I came to the conclusion I did.

Do you also get offended when people say "gosh darn it?" Or when somebody says "Hey, your fly is unzipped." Or something equally not offensive?

I do not get offended by that, but I do get offended when someone says to me that I am "whiney", insults my taste to boost his ego, changes my name from Gray Fox to Pink Fox, if you suggest I disconnect my internet and never leave my house, whne you mention I should Fock Off, call me an asshole, say that I should take a look in to Uterol PMS Relief, call me a whiney rabbines psycho. All that without any due provocation, and simply to insult me, just like you insult Smith and Kunrick and a lot of other people.

 

[Yuri]

If you want to insult my taste you can go for it, okay? I would probably argue with you but I wouldn't call you a goddamn troll.

Sure, I made fun of you because you whined and whined about NOTHING. You even admitted that you were whiny. You provoked me by saying I was a troll and my posts were meaningless, when I was just making some joking posts about people who stare in awe about things I don't really like. I egged you on because you just kept digging yourself into this pit of being easily provoked and ridiculous. Its kind of funny, actually.

I'm so sorry that I made fun of your favorite director. This is the internet, guy, everybody on it is exponentionally less caring of other people's "feelings." You shouldn't be offended by someone making a crack at you for loving some random director. Its not like I made fun of your mother.

 

[Gray Fox]

If you want to insult my taste you can go for it, okay? I would probably argue with you but I wouldn't call you a goddamn troll.

Sure, I made fun of you because you whined and whined about NOTHING. You even admitted that you were whiny. You provoked me by saying I was a troll and my posts were meaningless, when I was just making some joking posts about people who stare in awe about things I don't really like. I egged you on because you just kept digging yourself into this pit of being easily provoked and ridiculous. Its kind of funny, actually.

I'm so sorry that I made fun of your favorite director. This is the internet, guy, everybody on it is exponentionally less caring of other people's "feelings." You shouldn't be offended by someone making a crack at you for loving some random director. Its not like I made fun of your mother.

I see.

 

[Yuri]

Look, I'm sorry for offending you but you have to agree that you got pretty worked up over nothing.

I probably shouldn't make fun of Smith fans, either, its just I got so much shit from Smith fans thinking I'm stupid for not appreciating his movies that I brought it onto completely different people.

If somebody wants to make fun of me for absolutely loving Hellboy, though, be my guest

 

[Gray Fox]

ok:imu: :monkee:

 

[CptStern]

You are REALLY good at IGNORING MY ENTIRE POINT, Stern.

You said that you "proved" that Kubrick was one of the best directors of all time. Basically, that means that anyone who's opinion is otherwise is wrong.

My opinion is otherwise, and you said I was wrong. You said that where I may not think Kubrick is great, the fact remains that Kubrick is great. You said you "proved" that Kubrick was better than Smith.

I stated that this was my opinion and NOTHING MORE. I also stated that your love for Kubrick was opinion and NOTHING MORE.

Talk about flip flops, you are the one who flip flopped on me, you are the one who "proved that Kubrick is one of the greats" yet yells at me for stating opinion is fact (where?). IT IS YOUR OPINION THAT KUBRICK IS ONE OF THE GREATS, NOTHING MORE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT HE IS NOT, NOTHING MORE. I NEVER SAID THAT MY OPINION ON KUBRICK WAS FACT! YOU DID!

You tried to prove that Kubrick was one of the greats, you are trying to prove that Kubrick is better than Smith. You are presenting your opinions as facts. All I did was state my opinion that Kubrick isn't that great. Who did the flip flopping?

let me start by saying you need to stop seeing everything as a personal attack second of all I did prove Kubrick to be "one of the greats" as you put it:

He's on every critics top directors list not too mention AFI, British Film Institute, British Film Academy, the Academy of Arts and Sciences, Bafta, New York Film Critics and he's easily one of America's greatest directors

now before you go on and on how it's opinion and that a layman's opinion is just as valid I quantified my statement with this:

nope, that is a misconception ..layman opinion and opinion based on knowledge accumalted through years of research/study/experience are not equal. It's like saying a man off the street's opinion on say the Mona Lisa is equal to that of a person with a phd in art history specifically the renaissance

that's personal opinion, that doesnt validate or invalidate the art work being viewed ..only the artist and his peers can do that. The viewer generally is in a vacuum when viewing art for the first time ..they rarely understand the time period, the social/political implications of the period and generaly only have superficial knowledge of how to interpret a work of art

..when you're recognised by your peers it has some weight to it, it matters because those are the people that share the same insight into cinematography as you do

the common film-goer has no clue about the art behind film, all they relate to is based on personal experience that has absolutely nothing to do with film ..critics/historains/curators etc all have an informed opinion, the average guy on the street does not

I am sorry but you [the average person] are not qualified to make an informed opinion on film if you dont have the proper background ..that's just silly, it's like asking someone who only uses a computer for reading emails to critique Internet culture ..or asking someone who have velvet paintings of Elvis in his house to comment on the sistine chapel ...what could they possibly say that's of any worth? "it's pretty"?

And art teacher or not, Stern, you aren't teaching kids how to like art that you like, are you? Shouldn't you be teaching kids what art is about and how to make art and analyze it? I sincerely hope you didn't say "This artist is crap, this artist is the best." :|

you've been in school when was the last time you saw a teachers ciriculum revolve around that?

Look what I found

I never said anything about Kubrick being factually mediocre, yet you said he was factually great. And you say I did the flip flopping.

I dont see how I'm flip flopping

ARGH WHEN DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE MAJORITY?!

If someone wants to think that Spears is the goddess of music then FINE THAT IS THEIR OPINION! It is no more or less important than anyone else's goddamn opinion.

yes it is, informed opinion is not equal to an opinion based on personal taste

I don't let art professors and film critics tell me what is better than other things. I didn't go to four years of cinematography school or drawing school or anything like that, but people who have do not have any authority over me.

then how can you make a valid criticism when you admit having no foundatio to base your cricism on? it's just opinion based on personal taste, nothing more

Just because you know more about movie production and acting does not make your opinion any less valid than mine or pothole guy. At all. No one has the authority to tell people what sorts of art are good and bad.

if you were to sit Pi Mu Rho and lemonking (for the sake of argument, I could have picked a random person but lemonking illustrates my point more effectively) ... if you were to sit Pi Mu Rho and lemonking in front of a video game, neither of them have ever played which critique which you say has more value? a person who's helped develop games and has vast knowledge of what it takes to make a game or a layman off the street who just happens to like video games?

 

[Yuri]

You said you proved that Kubrick was better than Smith. You cannot possibly do such a thing. You are using the opinions of high-end critics as facts. Just because they believe some movie is amazing does not make the movie amazing, and it does not make the director amazing. It is not up to some scholarly critics to decide for the public what is good and what isn't. It is only up to the individuals in the audience.

Critics review movies that people have not seen yet and rate them. Some people value other people's opinions to decide if they should see a movie or not. Some people value some critic's opinions because they obviously know more about the subject than they do. But its not "Well, you are a critic, I must listen to everything you say." It is "Well, you are a critic, so I will take your opinion into mind when watching a movie." People form their own opinions. There is no such thing as "one of the best directors of all time" in any way except for an individual. You cannot prove that one artist is better than another to another person, that is completely illogical and impossible.

Personal taste is opinion, and nothing else should matter when you watch a movie. No one has the authority to tell people what is the best and what is not, no matter how intelligent and knowledgeale they are in the subject at hand.

Of course I would weigh Pi's opinion higher than lemon's. However, the opinion on the game itself is up to me only. I would use Pi's opinion to determine whether or not to buy or play the game. After playing it, I would keep his points in mind but formulate my own opinion on the game itself. There is no authority involved, and there is no one who can prove that some game is better than another game. It is simply influencing opinion rather than dictating it.

you've been in school when was the last time you saw a teachers ciriculum revolve around that?

What do you mean? If an art teacher says "This is a better painting than this painting," and they are speaking of proving such a thing, they have lost all credibility to me.

My art professor was there to teach us techniques in drawing. He also attempted to teach how to analyze art, and had critiques of artworks. He never once said that a piece was factually bad or factually good. He valued our opinions as students and did not dictate anything to us.


And sorry, I know it wasn't a personal attack. Sorry for saying it was. I'd like to take that back, if possible.

 

[CptStern]

You said you proved that Kubrick was better than Smith. You cannot possibly do such a thing. You are using the opinions of high-end critics as facts.

no I included every critic

Just because they believe some movie is amazing does not make the movie amazing, and it does not make the director amazing. It is not up to some scholarly critics to decide for the public what is good and what isn't. It is only up to the individuals in the audience.

in terms of whether or not an individual will like it yes, however in deciding whether the book/film/art piece has any artistic merit, or whether it matters or not is NOT left to the individual because the individual is not prepared to make such an assesment ..therefore using that criteria, Kubrick can be seen as one of the greats (some of his best films were commercial flops yet were critically acclaimed as being ahead of their time and masterpieces of cinema ...a Clockwork orange and many of his films are studied in university as imopotant works of the last century)

Critics review movies that people have not seen yet and rate them. Some people value other people's opinions to decide if they should see a movie or not. Some people value some critic's opinions because they obviously know more about the subject than they do. But its not "Well, you are a critic, I must listen to everything you say." It is "Well, you are a critic, so I will take your opinion into mind when watching a movie." People form their own opinions. There is no such thing as "one of the best directors of all time" in any way except for an individual. You cannot prove that one artist is better than another to another person, that is completely illogical and impossible.

yes I can ..this artist isnt on the same level as this one ...you may prefer one over the other but that your personal opinion does not change the fact that one had impact on culture and the other does not

Personal taste is opinion, and nothing else should matter when you watch a movie. No one has the authority to tell people what is the best and what is not, no matter how intelligent and knowledgeale they are in the subject at hand.

of course not, but I wasnt arguing that point ...however personal opinion plays no role in whether anything is good or not ..it just means that particular individual thinks it is ..it doesnt make it so. However once you enter into the realm of professional criticism whether it be books, film, barroque furinture the layman's opinion ceases to be valid because it is completely subjective

Of course I would weigh Pi's opinion higher than lemon's. However, the opinion on the game itself is up to me only.

of course, but we're not arguing that

I would use Pi's opinion to determine whether or not to buy or play the game.

that's far enough; you've proved my point ..which was what I was saying from the very beginning. You'd take his opinion to heart because it is an informed opinion

After playing it, I would keep his points in mind but formulate my own opinion on the game itself. There is no authority involved, and there is no one who can prove that some game is better than another game. It is simply influencing opinion rather than dictating it.

it does dictate it because it has validity behind it ...if I say that Raphael was influenced by the work of Michangelo you'd probably take my word for it because it is based on informed opinion

What do you mean? If an art teacher says "This is a better painting than this painting," and they are speaking of proving such a thing, they have lost all credibility to me.

My art professor was there to teach us techniques in drawing. He also attempted to teach how to analyze art, and had critiques of artworks. He never once said that a piece was factually bad or factually good. He valued our opinions as students and did not dictate anything to us.

but why would you assume I would do that?

And sorry, I know it wasn't a personal attack. Sorry for saying it was. I'd like to take that back, if possible.

I feel like I've been on an emotional rollercoaster, man, quit seeing stuff that isnt there. I'm not degrading anyone, nor am I putting myself above anyone else

 

[Yuri]

no I included every critic

You couldn't have possibly included every critic ever. I don't know of any personally (as I generally don't read up on such a thing), but I am willing to bet that a lot of critics who have a lot of artistic merit agree with me about Kubrick.

in terms of whether or not an individual will like it yes, however in deciding whether the book/film/art piece has any artistic merit, or whether it matters or not is NOT left to the individual because the individual is not prepared to make such an assesment ..therefore using that criteria, Kubrick can be seen as one of the greats (some of his best films were commercial flops yet were critically acclaimed as being ahead of their time and masterpieces of cinema ...a Clockwork orange and many of his films are studied in university as imopotant works of the last century)

Being critically acclaimed does not effect my or anyone else's opinion. Having impacts on society does not make one artist "better" than another. If you were to say Kubrick were more widely acclaimed than Smith, you would probably be right. If you were to say Kubrick has had a more profound impact on the film industry, you may be right (with proof). That's not what you said. You said, flat and and plainly, that you "proved" that Kubrick was better than Smith. Maybe he is better to you, maybe he is better to lots of critics, but that does not make it a fact that he is a "better director" than Smith.

yes I can ..this artist isnt on the same level as this one ...you may prefer one over the other but that your personal opinion does not change the fact that one had impact on culture and the other does not

I'm having trouble uderstanding why you would ever compare those two works of art. What could they possibly share in any way other than they are two-dimensional images now available on the internet? o_0

I'm sure one has much more profound impact on culture. That does not mean anything about how one is "better" than the other. Since when does cultural impact have anything to do with superiority in artwork? You cannot state that it is a fact that one is "better" than another. You can personally believe this, but you cannot state it as a fact.

of course not, but I wasnt arguing that point ...however personal opinion plays no role in whether anything is good or not ..it just means that particular individual thinks it is ..it doesnt make it so. However once you enter into the realm of professional criticism whether it be books, film, barroque furinture the layman's opinion ceases to be valid because it is completely subjective

There is no definiative "good" or "bad" in art... well-known critics' opinions are taken to heart because they are good at what they do, but they are not the authority on the subject.

that's far enough; you've proved my point ..which was what I was saying from the very beginning. You'd take his opinion to heart because it is an informed opinion

But I wouldn't allow him to tell me this game is great while another is awful as if they were facts. Just because I trust in Pi's opinion does not mean he has the authority to say what is great and what is not, and that if I disagree I am wrong. The final decision is made by the individual.

it does dictate it because it has validity behind it ...if I say that Raphael was influenced by the work of Michangelo you'd probably take my word for it because it is based on informed opinion

That is so much more specific than what is being argued here. Plus "informed opinion" is a much different concept than a "fact." You can't really prove there was influence there, but you are probably right, and I trust your judgement. If someone else were to say that it was not true, I would probably just trust you since you seem more knowlegeable on the subject. But that does not make what you say a "fact."

Look, you said Kubrick was a better director than Smith, and you stated that this was a fact. But it isn't a fact, it is an opinion shared by you and probably well-known critics all over the place. Just because film critics generally think that Kubrick is more culturally significant and just generally a better director, does not make this a fact. Someone can believe that Smith is better than Kubrick, and no one can say they are wrong. They can disagree, but they will be arguing each other's opinions. The only one who is wrong is the one who states that Kubrick is factually better than Smith, which is impossible.

but why would you assume I would do that?

Because you are doing it now! You even did it in this last post... :/



I get kind of rabid sometimes, I'm sorry.

 

[CptStern]

You couldn't have possibly included every critic ever. I don't know of any personally (as I generally don't read up on such a thing), but I am willing to bet that a lot of critics who have a lot of artistic merit agree with me about Kubrick.

I was being facetious of course I didnt interview them all however I did say that it's "many critics top directors lists". I seriously doubt any critic worth his weight would ever say his films suck ..they may say "I personally dont like them" but never that they suck, no matter how much he may feel that way because he wouldnt be much a critic if he was unable to see the importance of kubricks films as art

Being critically acclaimed does not effect my or anyone else's opinion.

you can only speak for yourself with any certainty ..being critically acclaimed does matter or there wouldnt be awards/accolades etc

Having impacts on society does not make one artist "better" than another.

yes it does ..do not confuse technique wil cultural importance

If you were to say Kubrick were more widely acclaimed than Smith, you would probably be right. If you were to say Kubrick has had a more profound impact on the film industry, you may be right (with proof). That's not what you said. You said, flat and and plainly, that you "proved" that Kubrick was better than Smith. Maybe he is better to you, maybe he is better to lots of critics, but that does not make it a fact that he is a "better director" than Smith.

then what would you use to measure acievement beyond the ordinary? surely not the layman's opinion. An artist can only be accurately judged by his peers ..therefore it is safe to say that since Kubrick has recieved far more critical accolades than Smith that he is better than smith (in terms of having artistic merit)

I'm having trouble uderstanding why you would ever compare those two works of art. What could they possibly share in any way other than they are two-dimensional images now available on the internet? o_0

they're both works of art ..one has cultural importance the other does not ..a layperson may look at the warcraft concept art and say "wow that's cool" and then look at the duchamp painting and say "I can draw better than that, what does it even mean? he's just using abstractio for abstractions sake" ..his entire argument is invalidated because he has no foundation in which to base his critique

I'm sure one has much more profound impact on culture. That does not mean anything about how one is "better" than the other. Since when does cultural impact have anything to do with superiority in artwork? You cannot state that it is a fact that one is "better" than another. You can personally believe this, but you cannot state it as a fact.

yes I can say with 100% certainty that that painting by duchampe is better than that warcraft painting ..and it's not based purely on opinion ..again do not mistake technique with artistic merit

There is no definiative "good" or "bad" in art... well-known critics' opinions are taken to heart because they are good at what they do, but they are not the authority on the subject.

bad art

good art

I just made an assessment that even though it's seemingly based on opinion is not ..art history, art techique, art in general tells me that that painted dog isnt a masterpiece ..the sistine chapel on the other hand .....


lets take it a step further

bad art

good art

now before you begin your protestations saying that Rockwell's art is far better than Picassos let me say one thing: it isnt ..it may be technically better (realistic representation) however were you to ask Rockwell he would be appalled that you'd even compare him to Picasso because it is 2 completely different fields ..Rockwell did advertising illustration, Picasso painted socially relevant art ...there's a world of difference. But a layperson wouldnt see that ..they'd just see that Rockwell'sart actually looks like people whereas picasso's look like well ...a messed up representation of what a human should look like ..but it's far more than just that

But I wouldn't allow him to tell me this game is great while another is awful as if they were facts. Just because I trust in Pi's opinion does not mean he has the authority to say what is great and what is not, and that if I disagree I am wrong. The final decision is made by the individual.

sure but you base your initial reaction by what HE said because it is an informed opinion

That is so much more specific than what is being argued here. Plus "informed opinion" is a much different concept than a "fact." You can't really prove there was influence there, but you are probably right, and I trust your judgement. If someone else were to say that it was not true, I would probably just trust you since you seem more knowlegeable on the subject. But that does not make what you say a "fact."

Look, you said Kubrick was a better director than Smith, and you stated that this was a fact. But it isn't a fact, it is an opinion shared by you and probably well-known critics all over the place. Just because film critics generally think that Kubrick is more culturally significant and just generally a better director, does not make this a fact. Someone can believe that Smith is better than Kubrick, and no one can say they are wrong. They can disagree, but they will be arguing each other's opinions. The only one who is wrong is the one who states that Kubrick is factually better than Smith, which is impossible.

you're putting too much emphasis on the word fact ...even though it's still applies here ...it's fact because due to certain criteria Kubricks contemporaries and film historians put him head and shoulders above smith ...I mean if you dont like his movie surely you can recognise the genius behind it ..or maybe not ..seen from today's eyes Clockwork orange barely raises an eyebrow because of the violence ..but that's the only thing a layman would see: the visceral. A film critic would see the time period's frame of reference, they'd take into account the social political make up of the day as well as the state of film and review it accordingly ...a layman would get into such depth because it wouldnt occur him to do so

Because you are doing it now! You even did it in this last post... :/

an open forum is not the same thing as a classroom

I get kind of rabid sometimes, I'm sorry.

apology accepted however this isnt the first time erestheux, just try to leave your dislike for me at the door before replying to one of my posts

 

[Yuri]

I was being facetious of course I didnt interview them all however I did say that it's "many critics top directors lists". I seriously doubt any critic worth his weight would ever say his films suck ..they may say "I personally dont like them" but never that they suck, no matter how much he may feel that way because he wouldnt be much a critic if he was unable to see the importance of kubricks films as art

I'm almost positive that any critic worth his weight would not say "suck." I'm also positive that at least one would agree with me with Kubrick's mediocrity.

you can only speak for yourself with any certainty ..being critically acclaimed does matter or there wouldnt be awards/accolades etc

I should have said "should not" instead of "does not" when referring to others, sorry. Awards are presented by specific people and more often then not I disagree with them quite a bit (Crash and an Oscar, WHAT?!) much like a lot of other people do.

yes it does ..do not confuse technique wil cultural importance

No it doesn't, and technique would not make one "better" than another either. I hope you don't assume that I like the Warcraft III guy better or something, either. Neither of these characteristics, nor any characterstic, can make any piece of art factually better than another.

then what would you use to measure acievement beyond the ordinary? surely not the layman's opinion. An artist can only be accurately judged by his peers ..therefore it is safe to say that since Kubrick has recieved far more critical accolades than Smith that he is better than smith (in terms of having artistic merit)

He is more popular and widely acclaimed than Smith. Most people probably prefer Kubrick to Smith. Kubrick has probably had a more profound cultural importance. This does not make him a better director than Smith. Nothing can do such a thing, factually...

they're both works of art ..one has cultural importance the other does not ..a layperson may look at the warcraft concept art and say "wow that's cool" and then look at the duchamp painting and say "I can draw better than that, what does it even mean? he's just using abstractio for abstractions sake" ..his entire argument is invalidated because he has no foundation in which to base his critique

If he prefers the cartoon guy, then to him the Warcraft III piece is better. This doesn't make the superiority a fact any more than some guy who thinks that the Warcraft III piece has no cultural significance (which I believe it has at least some) and therefore is inferior.

yes I can say with 100% certainty that that painting by duchampe is better than that warcraft painting ..and it's not based purely on opinion ..again do not mistake technique with artistic merit

But you cannot force this opinion onto others. You can say that you are certain that you think the Warcraft III painting is better than Duchampe, but you cannot say that it is factually better.

bad art

good art

I just made an assessment that even though it's seemingly based on opinion is not ..art history, art techique, art in general tells me that that painted dog isnt a masterpiece ..the sistine chapel on the other hand .....

And I would agree with you, but this does not make it a fact that one is better than the other. It just means that this is where we both stand on our artistic preferences and we share an opinion.

lets take it a step further

bad art

good art

now before you begin your protestations saying that Rockwell's art is far better than Picassos let me say one thing: it isnt ..it may be technically better (realistic representation) however were you to ask Rockwell he would be appalled that you'd even compare him to Picasso because it is 2 completely different fields ..Rockwell did advertising illustration, Picasso painted socially relevant art ...there's a world of difference. But a layperson wouldnt see that ..they'd just see that Rockwell'sart actually looks like people whereas picasso's look like well ...a messed up representation of what a human should look like ..but it's far more than just that

It is somewhat demeaning that you've assumed that I would think that the more realistically rendered piece is better, because I most certainly do not.

Realisitic technical application has nothing to do with this argument so I would appreciate it if you let it, and your assumptions, out of it...

Technical application is just as useful as cultural significance in determining what is "factually" better. People can use these things to base their opinions, but not facts. It is not a fact that the Picasso is better than that propaganda thingy. It is an opinion shared by a lot of people.

sure but you base your initial reaction by what HE said because it is an informed opinion

...okay? What he says is not fact, though, even if he had all kinds of support from equally knowledgeable individuals.

you're putting too much emphasis on the word fact ...even though it's still applies here ...it's fact because due to certain criteria Kubricks contemporaries and film historians put him head and shoulders above smith ...I mean if you dont like his movie surely you can recognise the genius behind it ..or maybe not ..seen from today's eyes Clockwork orange barely raises an eyebrow because of the violence ..but that's the only thing a layman would see: the visceral. A film critic would see the time period's frame of reference, they'd take into account the social political make up of the day as well as the state of film and review it accordingly ...a layman would get into such depth because it wouldnt occur him to do so

I don't really want to get into why I think Kubrick's work is very overanalyzed and very overhyped for what it is. But that is my opinion, and that is your opinion, and I don't know why you are debating the word "fact" here.

It is impossible to determine if one director is better than another. If someone thinks Smith is better than Kubrick they are entitled to this opinion and they cannot be "proven wrong."

an open forum is not the same thing as a classroom

Okay, good.

apology accepted however this isnt the first time erestheux, just try to leave your dislike for me at the door before replying to one of my posts

If you do the same. Also, you did throw some insults around earlier when speaking to Grey Fox at least, by saying he has the sophistication of a garden gnome or something. That was kind of mean. I was kind of mean too. Yeah.






Look, man, let's stop the quote wars, this is getting ridiculous.

I am saying that no matter how many people or how many film critics or how much cultural significance a certain director has, you cannot "prove" that he is better than another director. It is only up to the individual to decide. There are no facts in artistic merit, there are only opinions held by the audience. You cannot tell a person who likes Smith over Kubrick that they are factually wrong. You can say make fun of him or think lowly of him if you want to since your opinion differs, you can argue to try to convince him otherwise, but it impossible to "prove" that he is wrong, and that it is a fact that Kubrick is better than Smith.

 

[knut]

So uh.. anyway. I liked Clerks. Nothing great, but a good watch. Hell, I like most of Smiths films to be honest. Didn't like the Jay and Silent Bob films, though. Although I forget if he actually did them. Whatever.

 

[DeusExMachina]

The way I see it is like this-

Clerks-Well made, clever film about two people bored with their lives by a first time director on a very modest budget.
Mallrats-Horrible the first time you see it, but it grows on you. Probably his worst film.
Chasing Amy-A pretty serious drama that actually has something to say.
Dogma-A pretty good comedy that actually has something to say.
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back-...Subtle satire.

OHHH. No one saw that last one coming.

 

[Yuri]

Heh, I think the complete opposite on Mall Rats, I think its definately his best by far. Didn't see Amy or Strike Back, though, but I heard they were pretty bad.

Mall Rats was pretty funny, plus I sort of like Jason Lee. It had the most coherent plot of the 3 I've seen, and didn't get too serious (because that is where Smith is absolutely awful.) It was hilarious while maintaining a "movie" feel to it.

Clerks I thought had some pretty hilarious stuff, but it suffered most from bad acting. Its plot was thin and almost non-existant, it was mostly a bunch of clever dialogue stacked up right after another than an actual movie. In that regard it was more like a standup comedy session or a group of silly shorts than an actual movie. I found myself quite bored through a lot of it, as it was quite predictable and/or just boring in general.

Dogma took itself way too seriously, and its jokes about Christianity were all overdone, really. Apparantly it was supposed to be a drama with comedy on the side but I dunno. It also suffered from horrible acting, especially from the female lead. Once again, it takes itself too seriously when she randomly gets upset that she is some decendant of Jesus and runs away in the woods. That scene was one of the most horribly acted and written scenes I've ever seen, even on par with Plan 9... of all the movies I've ever bought, I've only regretted two: Dogma and Jackie Brown. Both were $7.50, and I based my puchases on my friends both times. I will not deny that there was quite a lot of hilarious stuff in the movie, but I found myself bored because it was both slow, and most of the jokes were quite corny. "Can you make a holy bartender?" Ha ha. :| Even buddy Jesus wasn't that innovative, and definately not unique. George Carlin should be banned from movies and just stick to his standup.


Wow I sure do rant.

 

[DeusExMachina]

...Wait...you regret buying Dogma, quite possibly Smith's best film and Jackie Browne, quite possibly Tarantino's best film?

 

[Yuri]

I can't believe you actually think that.

Does your taste also involve licking moth balls? :/

Dogma was god compared to Jackie Brown, too. I thought Dogma was dissappointing. I had a hard time finishing Jackie Brown, one of the most boring drawnout stupid movies I've ever seen in my life.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Jackie Browne was Tarantino's first "mature" film. With Pulp Fiction, you feel cool just watching it. Jackie Browne wasn't made for that. It's probably one of the most underrated films ever.

But, these are just our opinions . I mean, you and I obviously have polar opposite views on Mallrats.

 

[Yuri]

Yeah, I'm glad you didn't take the moth ball comment to heart

I've honestly never met a fan of that movie, though. I've met plenty of Dogma fans, and I can see that. But Jackie Brown? If I wasn't bored, I was annoyed at how slow it was and how lacking the dialogue was in content. Or hating the bail bondsman for being one of the worst actors ever.

Maybe its an aquired taste.

*gets a moth ball and rubs it on the end of my tongue*

:x

 

[CptStern]

Look, man, let's stop the quote wars, this is getting ridiculous.

I am saying that no matter how many people or how many film critics or how much cultural significance a certain director has, you cannot "prove" that he is better than another director. It is only up to the individual to decide. There are no facts in artistic merit, there are only opinions held by the audience. You cannot tell a person who likes Smith over Kubrick that they are factually wrong. You can say make fun of him or think lowly of him if you want to since your opinion differs, you can argue to try to convince him otherwise, but it impossible to "prove" that he is wrong, and that it is a fact that Kubrick is better than Smith.

we're going to have to agree to disagree because I cant for a minute believe the common man on the street is qualified to judge what is art and what is not ..were that true the Rock or Con Air would probably be considered better than Casablanca, Citizen Kane would be called "lame, over rated and stinky because it's in black and white", un Chien Andalou would be considered an artsy fartsy film, completely misunderstood and panned for being "boring" or not having enough guns or breasts, La Dolce Vita would regulated to the "it's gotta be crap bercause it's in italian and has subtitles ...I'm not reading subtitles".
He may offer up an opinion based on his personal tastes but they carry no real weight because they havent a foundation in film history, art or critical thinking therefore their opinion is based entirely on personal taste ..which is the antithesis of critical thinking

It is not a fact that the Picasso is better than that propaganda thingy

it is a fact, there is no disputing this .. Rockwell's painting has no hidden meaning, no social political statement, no statement to make about the condition of man, no historical revelance what-so-ever (except as nostalgia and as admiration for a talented illustrator) ..in fact a photograph could have conveyed the exact same meaning as that Rockwell painting ..it's advertisment for a lifestyle magazine ..Picasso's paintings do fit all the above criteria. He is arguably the most important artist of the last century. Again do not confuse technical skill with artistic merit. Being "better" in terms of skill or technique is meaningless in art. I guess "more influential, more important" is more appropriate than "better"

If you do the same.

I never have ...you're civil to me most of the times but I've always been aware of your hidden hostility that you seem to mask pretty well ...most of the time

Also, you did throw some insults around earlier when speaking to Grey Fox at least, by saying he has the sophistication of a garden gnome or something.

I was speaking to gray fox and we had just both come back from a separate argument in another thread ..I'm sure the feeling is mutual

 

[Yuri]

we're going to have to agree to disagree because I cant for a minute believe the common man on the street is qualified to judge what is art and what is not ..were that true the Rock or Con Air would probably be considered better than Casablanca, Citizen Kane would be called "lame, over rated and stinky because it's in black and white", un Chien Andalou would be considered an artsy fartsy film, completely misunderstood and panned for being "boring" or not having enough guns or breasts, La Dolce Vita would regulated to the "it's gotta be crap bercause it's in italian and has subtitles ...I'm not reading subtitles".
He may offer up an opinion based on his personal tastes but they carry no real weight because they havent a foundation in film history, art or critical thinking therefore their opinion is based entirely on personal taste ..which is the antithesis of critical thinking

See, I think this is why we are disagreeing. You have the opinion that some movies are actually very good and better than most, and some are awful. This is in accordance to critics and scholars' opinions in filmography.

You also seem to think that I think the majority decides the final verdict on how good a movie is, instead of scholars. Well, you are wrong in that regard, because I just plainly think that no one, not the majority or critics or anyone, really has the decision on how good a movie is considered. I think its only up to the individual. And sure, most of the time, the individual will think that Con Air is the best, or The Rock (which was a pretty entertaining movie if you ask me ). But that has no bearing on how good or bad the movie is. The individuals can share their opinions with others, but they cannot present them as facts.

it is a fact, there is no disputing this .. Rockwell's painting has no hidden meaning, no social political statement, no statement to make about the condition of man, no historical revelance what-so-ever (except as nostalgia and as admiration for a talented illustrator) ..in fact a photograph could have conveyed the exact same meaning as that Rockwell painting ..it's advertisment for a lifestyle magazine ..Picasso's paintings do fit all the above criteria. He is arguably the most important artist of the last century. Again do not confuse technical skill with artistic merit. Being "better" in terms of skill or technique is meaningless in art. I guess "more influential, more important" is more appropriate than "better"

Okay, no its not a fact, you cannot prove that an artist is "better" than another because no one has this authority. But I'm agreeing to disagree so long as you don't tell me that things like that are facts any more. "More influential, more important" does not necessarily amount to "better," either.

Please stop being so condescending about the technical skill thing, too. Its upsetting me, stern, I'm not a moron who thinks that realistic art is automatically better than impressionism or something. :/ You have to stop assuming that I have no idea what I am talking about just because I disagree that you can "prove" Picasso is better than propaganda guy. I never said I disagreed with your opinion that Picasso is much, much, better (because I don't, at all). I just said I disagreed with you presenting this as fact.

I never have ...you're civil to me most of the times but I've always been aware of your hidden hostility that you seem to mask pretty well ...most of the time

*sigh* You always repeat on how much I hate you and stuff when I don't. You are just one of those people that has a clashing personality with me, that I argue with like all the time. That doesn't mean I hate you, but if you want to think that, then whatever.

I was speaking to gray fox and we had just both come back from a separate argument in another thread ..I'm sure the feeling is mutual

Didn't know that.

 

[CptStern]

See, I think this is why we are disagreeing. You have the opinion that some movies are actually very good and better than most, and some are awful. This is in accordance to critics and scholars' opinions in filmography.

depending what we're talking about ..if the thread is about "what are your fave movies?" = pure opinion ..if the thread is "what ARE the best movies?" well then opinion is subjective so other ways of measuring what is better are necessary. Therefore it is logical to conclude that personal opinion will be put on the back burner in favour of critical analysis ..personal opinion in that context CANNOT be used

You also seem to think that I think the majority decides the final verdict on how good a movie is, instead of scholars. Well, you are wrong in that regard, because I just plainly think that no one, not the majority or critics or anyone, really has the decision on how good a movie is considered. I think its only up to the individual. And sure, most of the time, the individual will think that Con Air is the best, or The Rock (which was a pretty entertaining movie if you ask me ). But that has no bearing on how good or bad the movie is. The individuals can share their opinions with others, but they cannot present them as facts.

again personal opinion has little weight in deciding whether something is good or not ..someone could easily argue that Planet 9 is the best film of all time because THEY think it is ..it doesnt make it so ..the only way to faithfully "prove" that it is not is through critical analysis ..therefore one could be seen as better than the other because they've passed certain criteria

Okay, no its not a fact, you cannot prove that an artist is "better" than another because no one has this authority.

yes they do and yes I can ..critical analysis allows me to do so

But I'm agreeing to disagree so long as you don't tell me that things like that are facts any more. "More influential, more important" does not necessarily amount to "better," either.

same concept different words

Please stop being so condescending about the technical skill thing, too. Its upsetting me, stern, I'm not a moron who thinks that realistic art is automatically better than impressionism or something. :/ You have to stop assuming that I have no idea what I am talking about just because I disagree that you can "prove" Picasso is better than propaganda guy. I never said I disagreed with your opinion that Picasso is much, much, better (because I don't, at all). I just said I disagreed with you presenting this as fact.

it is fact there is no disputing this ..rockwell's art was made to SELL something ..the other was meant as an observation on the condition of man ..the meaning alone makes it "better" ..the skill behind it may not be "better" but the picasso painting has far more weight and far more importance than the rockwell because the only reason why rockwell's painting was produced was to sell magazines ..that in itself kills artisitic expression and becomes more of a technical profession not a creative one. Oh and I'm not trying to be condesceding in fact I wasnt referring to you at all when I made those examples ..how could I? I have no idea as to what your level of knowledge around art is ..so why would I make an assumption?

*sigh* You always repeat on how much I hate you and stuff when I don't. You are just one of those people that has a clashing personality with me, that I argue with like all the time. That doesn't mean I hate you, but if you want to think that, then whatever.

I dont think you hate me, I just know you dont particularily like me ..I've always known that ...but it doesnt bother me all that much because I cant fault some people for disliking my POV or my character ..it's inevitable ..especially since my politics sometimes get in the way of making an accurate picture of what I may be like ...but I dont lose sleep over it



Didn't know that.[/QUOTE]

 

[Yuri]

Look man, I'm finished with this, and its going no where now.

Fox said he thought Smith was better than Kubrick.

You tried to prove him wrong.

I told you that you cannot prove such a thing wrong because no one but the individual has the authority to do that.

I'm not going to argue with you on why you can't tell someone that they are wrong about their opinion on artwork any more. You can think that its a fact that Kubrick is better than Smith, but its not a very good debate tactic when arguing with someone else.

But I'm done. If you want to think that, go ahead. I'm arguing for someone who is not even part of the discussion anyways.

I would hope you wouldn't lose sleep over thinking some random guy on the internet doesn't much like you. But when we aren't discussing (some) politics, stern, I rather like you.

 

[Harryz]

I rather like you.

"Stern and Erestheux, sitting in the tree, K-I-S.."

Okay, I'll stop.

I personally think Kevin Smith is a pretty good writer and a medicore Director/Actor; hes even said it himself in interviews, he came up with the role of Silent Bob because he isn't the most talented actor (watch "An Evening with Kevin Smith").

Looking forward to Clerks II, enjoyed Dogma and Chasing Amy. I would say its up there with Godfather and Citizen Kane.

 

[smwScott]

I'm a pretty big Kevin Smith fan. Clerks is one of my favorite comedies and Chasing Amy was a great movie. But I'm seriously in shock at some of these opinions. Better than Kubrick? Better than The Godfather and Citizen Kane? I think you might be missing the point of these movies. They're not supposed to be the greatest movies ever made, they're just very well written comedies that appeal to a very select demographic. Kevin Smith isn't even a good director, he's just a great writer. Honestly if someone ever looked him in the eye and said "I think you're better than Kubrick" he would probably bust a gut laughing.

 

[Gray Fox]

I'm a pretty big Kevin Smith fan. Clerks is one of my favorite comedies and Chasing Amy was a great movie. But I'm seriously in shock at some of these opinions. Better than Kubrick? Better than The Godfather and Citizen Kane? I think you might be missing the point of these movies. They're not supposed to be the greatest movies ever made, they're just very well written comedies that appeal to a very select demographic. Kevin Smith isn't even a good director, he's just a great writer. Honestly if someone ever looked him in the eye and said "I think you're better than Kubrick" he would probably bust a gut laughing.

I never said he was better then Kubrick, read the comments again and you will see that I put his scriptwriting on par with kubrick. When Ebert, even says it's brilliant, and I mean he hates everything, everything that came after citizen kane, then you know it's dammed ****ing brilliant.
(edit: sorry scott, didn't see harryz comment, I'm very sorry)

 

[Harryz]

Better than The Godfather and Citizen Kane?

There was no sarcasm in my post.










Of course there was!

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

more importantly, will Berserker make an appearance?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

depending what we're talking about ..if the thread is about "what are your fave movies?"

How about some quote boxes.

= pure opinion ..if the thread is "what ARE the best movies?" well then opinion is subjective so other ways of measuring what is better are necessary.

Filling up the entire screen.

Therefore it is logical to conclude that personal opinion will be put on the back burner in favour of critical analysis ..personal opinion in that context CANNOT be used

As we go into an intense philisophical debate.

again personal opinion has little weight in deciding whether something is good or not ..someone could easily argue that Planet 9 is the best film of all time because THEY think it is ..it doesnt make it so ..the only way to faithfully "prove"

About the nature of Art as cultural arbiter and commodity.

that it is not is through critical analysis ..therefore one could be seen as better than the other because they've passed certain criteria

And its role in postmillenial society.

yes they do and yes I can ..critical analysis allows me to do so

same concept different words

In the thread for Clerks 2.

it is fact there is no disputing this ..rockwell's art was made to SELL something ..the other was meant as an observation on the condition of man ..the meaning alone makes it "better" ..the skill behind it may not be "better" but the picasso painting has far more weight and far more importance than the rockwell because the only reason why rockwell's painting was produced was to sell magazines ..that in itself kills artisitic expression and becomes more of a technical profession not a creative one. Oh and I'm not trying to be condesceding in fact I wasnt referring to you at all when I made those examples ..how could I? I have no idea as to what your level of knowledge around art is ..so why would I make an assumption?

Clerks Motherfucking Two.

I dont think you hate me, I just know you dont particularily like me ..I've always known that ...but it doesnt bother me all that much because I cant fault some people for disliking my

Kubrick rocks the world, btw.

POV or my character ..it's inevitable ..especially since my politics sometimes get in the way of making an accurate picture of what I may be like ...but I dont lose sleep over it

Also Dogma had moments of goodness.

Didn't know that.

Imu: :imu:

 

[Gunner]

Whoa. WHOA.

Smith is a pretty good writer/director. Didn't you ever see Chasing Amy or Dogma?

Both sucked IMO, sorry.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Dogma was awful, teenage posturing about religion and plenty of 'woah deep man'

Load of utter bollocks. It was rubbish.

 

[CptStern]

How about some quote boxes.



Filling up the entire screen.



As we go into an intense philisophical debate.



About the nature of Art as cultural arbiter and commodity.



And its role in postmillenial society.



In the thread for Clerks 2.



Clerks Motherfucking Two.



Kubrick rocks the world, btw.



Also Dogma had moments of goodness.



Imu: :imu:

heh, when Kubrick's work is compared to clerks there's bound to be a few outraged comments that eventually leads to philisophical discussions on the merits of art as commodity ..but point well taken

let us never mention clerks 2 and cinema again

 

[SAJ]

I really hate to break up this "opinion vs analysis" debate -as passionate and entertaining as it is- , but...... has anyone actully seen Clerks 2 ?



PS; Kubrick > Hitchcock

 

[CptStern]

PS; Kubrick > Hitchcock

oh the humanity!!!!

I honestly cant say which I prefer ..they have such vastly different styles

 

[DeusExMachina]

I'm more of a Kubrick person than a Hitchcock. Hell, Orson Welles > Them