[quote=Iroquois]Not a dud number in the bunch.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois][quote=Yoda][quote=Wyldesyde19]Forgive me for asking, but what does off site stuff cover exactly?  
Don’t need specifics of his case Specifically , obviously, but the violations that could lead to it.[/quote]
Any threats or harassment done outside of the forum. Usually email.[/quote]

Seems rather ironic that this all happened over an argument over the semantics of the word "hate". Oh well, at least I don't have to tell him what I thought of [i]Kaboom[/i].[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]I don't. I noted this elsewhere, but I remember thinking [i]In Bruges[/i] was amazing when I saw it in theatres but [i]Seven Psychopaths[/i] and [i]Three Billboards[/i] were disappointing enough that I'm genuinely reluctant to revisit it. I did see his short film [i]Six Shooter[/i] - between that and a couple of the standalone vignettes in [i]Seven Psychopaths[/i], I might prefer him doing shorter stuff because he gets unwieldy at feature length.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]Yeah, I mean the original question was about noticing bad acting anyway. Didn't much care for the movie aside from that either.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois][quote=ynwtf]Well. There was that pretty bad flick called [i]Wing Commander[/i] I might have walked out of. I'm not sure if I did or not though.[/quote]

Either way, you're not the only one who hated [i]Wing Commander[/i].[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois][quote=Zotis]Have you ever been watching a movie, enjoying, thinking it's good, and then all of a sudden realise the acting is bad and from that point on just experience b-movie cringe?[/quote]

Usually I'm either on board for the whole thing, realise it's bad from the start, or realise it's bad after watching the whole thing and thinking it's good, but as for realising it partway through a movie...hmm. The only one I can really think of that comes anywhere close is [i]Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri[/i].[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois][quote=AgrippinaX][quote=Iroquois][quote=AgrippinaX]Yes, but not every work has an inherent sense of meaning beyond being a story where a sequence of events leads to a thematic conclusion. There’s a lot to be said for the aesthetic approach. Beauty in architecture and even human proportions has objective parameters, such as the golden ratio. No such objective measures exist to determine whether a film or a novel possess the quality of beauty. But I would say that while every work of art has an ideology, that comes from the author and his beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices. It doesn’t always translate to the work itself, and it’s perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‘point’ to make. It’s up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I don’t think that ‘anything goes’ in interpreting a given work of art, as some interpretations can be plain wrong, but some works of art do not exist to be interpreted at all and constitute pure entertainment. That should not, in my view, take away from their validity and right to exist, though to engage or not engage with them is a personal choice. I would say that approaching a film or a novel at face value and analysing how it works in terms of storytelling, without taking into account its message if such exists, is viewing it in an abstract manner.[/quote]

A fair point, though I would think that also calls into question at what point you delineate between art and entertainment - depending on the piece in question, it can have as much (or as little) of a point as possible. Even films that do aim to be pure entertainment without intending any deeper message can end up compromised not just by ideology but by their aesthetics (whether related to ideology or not).[/quote]

Yes, it is certainly not a given that a work of art that aims to be pure entertainment does not also make a point of carry a message. But some films clearly appear to have none beyond telling a story (unless you delve deep into dubious sacral interpretations). Off the top of my head, a film I’d be hard pressed to find a message in is ‘Ocean’s Eleven’, beyond the usual heist film logic whereby several skilled guys outsmart a smug guy and live happily ever after. I think it’s ultimately a personal choice to look or not look for a message in art.[/quote]

Soderbergh seems like the kind of filmmaker who's clever enough to add at least some subtext even to his lighter films (e.g. [i]Logan Lucky[/i] or [i]Magic Mike[/i]) but I'm not sure I could tell you what the [i]Ocean's[/i] movies in particular are about. That may explain why I never liked them.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois][quote=Chypmunk]Dear Lord, where's all the usual silliness gone???? 

Welcome to the Sensiblebox :eek:[/quote]

"Smartbox" was right there.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois][quote=AgrippinaX]Yes, but not every work has an inherent sense of meaning beyond being a story where a sequence of events leads to a thematic conclusion. There’s a lot to be said for the aesthetic approach. Beauty in architecture and even human proportions has objective parameters, such as the golden ratio. No such objective measures exist to determine whether a film or a novel possess the quality of beauty. But I would say that while every work of art has an ideology, that comes from the author and his beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices. It doesn’t always translate to the work itself, and it’s perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‘point’ to make. It’s up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I don’t think that ‘anything goes’ in interpreting a given work of art, as some interpretations can be plain wrong, but some works of art do not exist to be interpreted at all and constitute pure entertainment. That should not, in my view, take away from their validity and right to exist, though to engage or not engage with them is a personal choice. I would say that approaching a film or a novel at face value and analysing how it works in terms of storytelling, without taking into account its message if such exists, is viewing it in an abstract manner.[/quote]

A fair point, though I would think that also calls into question at what point you delineate between art and entertainment - depending on the piece in question, it can have as much (or as little) of a point as possible. Even films that do aim to be pure entertainment without intending any deeper message can end up compromised not just by ideology but by their aesthetics (whether related to ideology or not).[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois][quote=Yoda]Keep saying thoughtful and nuanced things, people, and I'll be forced to move this into a thread.[/quote]

Damn, I'm never going to overtake Rodent on the leaderboard if that keeps happening. Time to start posting "Good morning" over and over again.[/quote]