What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

St. Clown said:
Not at all. People like what they like, and I don't hold it against them. However, when a person presents his/her choices they way he did, they deserve the ire of every single person who happens across their holier-than-thou cinematic ministrations.
Click to expand...

For obvious reasons, I don't have an issue with a writer's pomposity if she's saying something interesting. After all, the whole idea of pomposity is "false importance." If a writer manages to say something important she's failed the pomposity test right off. (BTW, I don't know that that's true of the movie review in question. It's a movie review, by definition it's all a silly exercise anyway.)

I have a much bigger problem with the "aw shucks" style of writing where the writer is every bit as self-important but hides behind the persona you'd like to have a beer with. That guy? F-ck that guy.

Slob snobbery is more of a problem in this country than snob snobbery. It goes along with our anti-intellectualism. My advice is if you don't like people making fine distinctions using intellectual argument don't read The New Yorker. What you're doing is the equivalent of throwing down Motor Trend in a huff, saying, "Jesus Christ, I couldn't care less about cars!" That's not on the writer, it's on you.
 
Last edited:
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Kepler said:
For obvious reasons, I don't have an issue with a writer's pomposity if she's saying something interesting. After all, the whole idea of pomposity is "false importance." If a writer manages to say something important she's failed the pomposity test right off. (BTW, I don't know that that's true of the movie review in question. It's a movie review, by definition it's all a silly exercise anyway.)

I have a much bigger problem with the "aw shucks" style of writing where the writer is every bit as self-important but hides behind the persona you'd like to have a beer with. That guy? F-ck that guy.

Slob snobbery is more of a problem in this country than snob snobbery. It goes along with our anti-intellectualism. My advice is if you don't like people making fine distinctions using intellectual argument don't read The New Yorker. What you're doing is the equivalent of throwing down Motor Trend in a huff, saying, "Jesus Christ, I couldn't care less about cars!" That's not on the writer, it's on you.
Click to expand...
I've never once opened a New Yorker or visited its site prior to today, so perhaps it is on me. Still, there are methods to writing which are both eloquent and don't require your reader to either breakout a dictionary or thesaurus just to understand your meaning. Besides that, the guy is clearly ensnaring himself in his verbal gymnastics, causing him to mix metaphors and creating contradictions. Based upon what you tell me of the New Yorker, and Handyman's quick quip, they're more interested in the style over the substance.

There's a fine line in providing well written snobbery that neither debases your readers or gives them a false sense of importance. He fails at it miserably.

As to your point about it being a movie review, sure. But it's still bad writing.
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Listen, all we need to take away from the review is that the reviewer says that AotC and RotS were the best in the series. You can place as much value you need on his review based solely on that one line.
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

St. Clown said:
I've never once opened a New Yorker or visited its site prior to today, so perhaps it is on me. Still, there are methods to writing which are both eloquent and don't require your reader to either breakout a dictionary or thesaurus just to understand your meaning. Besides that, the guy is clearly ensnaring himself in his verbal gymnastics, causing him to mix metaphors and creating contradictions. Based upon what you tell me of the New Yorker, and Handyman's quick quip, they're more interested in the style over the substance.
Click to expand...

Like pretty much all entertainment, they are projecting an image, just like all the ads on their pages are projecting an image. Things like The New Yorker or Duck Dynasty aren't about what they are supposedly about. They're about touching antenna with other people like you, who get you. The whole point is you don't have to break out a dictionary or thesaurus because you not only know those words but use them in everyday speech. Just like the people who watch Duck Dynasty get whatever references they make to fishing lures or Jeff Foxworthy routines or Sean Hannity memes. The stuff the outsiders don't get is the inside joke you get and enjoy. They are selling camaraderie to a world with precious little of it.

I'm not a big reader of TNY. AFAIK, it tries to be a literary magazine because it had a long ago history during which it really was one. It isn't any more because that's not a viable market anymore. "Serious literature," in English anyway, died sometime shortly after WW2, perhaps not coincidentally when TV became ubiquitous and began reducing attention spans, limiting imaginations, and destroying the inner monologues that people used to have when they could, literally, hear themselves think. We live in a world where Vonnegut is profound, and I mean that with all due respect to Vonnegut, who I love. But that's just about the deepest and most soulful real writing we've produced in the last 70 years, and as he was always the first to preach, it isn't much. The really interesting High Art that is also popular culture now comes out of movies or sometimes VERY rarely in TV or popular music. So TNY is a relic. Its life and purpose are obsolete but somehow there it still is, so a handful of true believers rally round it and bestow it with whatever meaning they need it to have.
 
Last edited:
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Handyman said:
This new trend of people attacking reporters because they dont like the review they gave of a movie (not saying you did that Clown) needs to end and fast.
Click to expand...

I haven't commented yet, but I don't disagree with St.C at all on this and it has nothing to do with him not liking the movie. I couldn't care less because 1) I'm not a fanboy 2) I'm going to see it anyway. He simply came across as being full of it even more so than he was full of himself. :)
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Sausage Party:

It's about what you would expect, for the dick and fart jokes. However, the stereotype jokes/etc....wow! Lewd, crude, offensive....it was awesome. And the end scene...JFC. ***.

Definitely recommend.
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Brenthoven said:
Sausage Party:

It's about what you would expect, for the dick and fart jokes. However, the stereotype jokes/etc....wow! Lewd, crude, offensive....it was awesome. And the end scene...JFC. ***.

Definitely recommend.
Click to expand...

I was rolling through most of the movie, but didn't even know how to respond when watching that scene at the end. It's perfectly in line with the rest of the movie, but they just turned it up to 11. That's one more.
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

St. Clown said:
I was rolling through most of the movie, but didn't even know how to respond when watching that scene at the end. It's perfectly in line with the rest of the movie, but they just turned it up to 11. That's one more.
Click to expand...

My brother and his woman watched it, asked if I had seen it, and when I said no, their exact response was: "End scene. Dude. Just..."
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Some TV show last night listed their top Christmas movies, and while I would have chosen many of the movies on the list, I definitely would have ordered them differently.

For example, It's a Wonderful Life is not really a "Christmas" movie, it's a movie of despair and redemption that happens to be set at Christmas time. Even so, I'd have it # 6 on my list.

# 5. Elf
# 4. animated version of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"
# 3. The Alistair Sim version of A Christmas Carol
# 2. A Christmas Story
# 1. The Edmund Gwenn / Natalie Wood version of Miracle on 34th Street





PS At this link there is a great story about how It's a Wonderful Life helped Jimmy Stewart get back into acting again. He suffered terribly from PTSD as a result of his service during WWII, and there was some concern that he wouldn't be able to take up acting again. His scenes of despair in the movie reflected what he was going through in his life at the time, and according to the article, it was Lionel Barrymore that helped him regain his bearings during the movie's production:
While he was making that film, he was questioning the superficiality of Hollywood and acting in general, and Lionel Barrymore (who plays Mr. Potter) said to him, "So, are you saying it's more worthwhile to drop bombs on people than to entertain them?" And that really hit Stewart and was one of the things that turned him around and made him think, "OK, I do have an important role and there are things to be done."
Click to expand...
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

FreshFish said:
PS At this link there is a great story about how It's a Wonderful Life helped Jimmy Stewart get back into acting again. He suffered terribly from PTSD as a result of his service during WWII, and there was some concern that he wouldn't be able to take up acting again. His scenes of despair in the movie reflected what he was going through in his life at the time, and according to the article, it was Lionel Barrymore that helped him regain his bearings during the movie's production:
Click to expand...

I had not heard this before; thanks for posting it.
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Favorite 5 Christmas Movies / 5 TV Animations:

5. Frosty (though to be fair Frosty kinda sucks)
4. Rudolph
3. Charlie Brown
2. Grinch
1. Santa Claus is Coming to Town (I identified with the Winter Warlock as a child)

5. The Ref
4. Trading Places
3. Black Christmas
2. A Christmas Story
1. Holiday Inn
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

A Christmas Story
Animated Grinch (if you count that as movie, not a tv special)
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
A Christmas Carol (George C Scott version; technially a tv movie)
Gremlins
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

#5 Santa Clause (watched it growing up a lot)
#4 Home Alone
#3 Scrooged
#2 Die Hard
#1 Christmas Vacation

Honorable Mention to the animated Grinch and Charlie Brown, both of which I thought were tv specials and thus disqualified.
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

dxmnkd316 said:
A Christmas Story sucks.
Click to expand...

You're pure evil.

Rogue One. So as with Ep 7 there are some recycled themes, similar origins for the protagonist and battle sequences, etc. But it all still works together in the end for an entertaining two hours. As with 7 it started slowly for me interest wise, but as the story and characters begin to develop my engagement ratcheted up. They do a good job showcasing most of the obvious ties with Ep 4 although I was really hoping for at least one, "AHA!" moment/big reveal that would have made me think, "I really have to watch A New Hope" again but maybe that's an impossible task. My other critique is that I wasn't quite as invested in the newly introduced characters even before the ending because it's hard to knowing they're not represented in any of the subsequent films but still overall I enjoyed it. As with all of the films except 1-3 I will watch this one at least one more time in the theater, next time I'm going to see it in IMAX without the kids. :)
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Handyman said:
No he is right. A Christmas Story is a cancer and not having cable is my chemo!
Click to expand...

There were no Saudi terrorist attacks in the United States before the release of A Christmas Story.

I'm only asking the question.
 
Re: MOVIES: New Ideas Welcome!

Handyman said:
No he is right. A Christmas Story is a cancer and not having cable is my chemo!
Click to expand...

I bet you shot your eye out as a child or stuck your tongue to some frozen object, and that's why you don't like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top