Movies I really dislike that most people love

I feel the same way about people who only watch blockbusters and say all art movies are pretentious and boring. Two sides of the same narrow-minded coin.

There are always two sides. Makesthe world go around. Pretty boring place if everyone liked the same things.

I know. I just wish they wouldn't relentlessly judge other things and people who like them.

Life's too short. I mean imagine how much energy I would waste and friends I would blow off for liking people for loving chocolate. Same for them if they judge me for liking olives. We just get on with it and enjoy what we enjoy. Leaves more olives for me!

You're right people should never judge someone for what kind of chocolate they like but if a pacific chocolate bar left a bad taste in my mouth I sure would warn others not to make the same mistake. Same principle with a film. but hey since you don't like being warned I'll leave all the bad chocolate bars for you.

Dark chocolate is the best, fact not opinion.

Just dont tell the others or they'll try to swipe yours!

I like both chocolate and olives

I wont judge you but you can be my friend, CR!

You don't like chocolate?

What kind of olive do you like. Me, I like Kalamata (I probably didn't spell that right) and giant green olives stuffed with garlic are good.

Forums have been started for less. I'm tempted to start one right now about chocolate unfortunately though I don't think it would be suited for movie forum. But if I could turn any fictional city into chocolate it would probably be Asgard from Thor. And the un liftable chocolate hammer. Un eatable though that is the big question

Niot a fan of choc unless it's the raw, organic stuff which is quite bitter. As for olives, yeah the big jumbo olives stuffed with garlic or anchovies (or capsicum,chili, artichokeheart, anything). At family gatherings my niece and I just stand there and eat.

I dont judge people who dont like them, the same as I dont judge people who dont likemovies I do. Life is too short.

Not being very serious isn't really a good excuse for poorly constructed arguments and lazy assumptions. Have some conviction.

Many ancient Egyptian artefacts are just household objects or normal writing on rock tablets. They're not all art. They are relics of the ancient past. They are valuable because they are very old and teach us about history.

I haven't watched Deadpool as it doesn't interest me in the slightest, but technically it fits within the parameters of the dictionary definition of "art." It may not be good art, but it is made for the purpose of creative expression. So technically it does qualify. Regardless, setting up some parameters for why it's okay to destroy one thing and not another is a double standard. It's not okay to destroy something that someone else enjoys just because you don't consider it art. It doesn't harm you by existing. Why not just let the people who like those kinds of movies enjoy them? You wouldn't like it if someone with higher standards for art than you came along and destroyed the art you enjoy just because they didn't think it qualified as art. Be considerate.

[IMG]Yes household objects crafted by hard-working individuals trying to make a living so there is a definite indignity to destroying stuff like that. A lot of these new Marvel films it starts with a director with a clear vision and then the big producers of Hollywood interferes dumbing down the script and the film sometimes even taking the movie out of the directors hands. This happens with countless Marvel films not all of them but many so destroying them might be a justice for the original director. So yes if I could I would destroy all these soulless money making films in order to pave way for films that contribute to art or at least deserve my attention. So how's that for conviction.

But yes it is a double standard and there are a lot of grey areas in this subject like maybe the film was a distorted vision of a director who got interfered with. Some of that may be drawn from pure inspiration in the film where are some may not. But to tell you the truth I just don't want to see a dumbing down of society a scary reality where people rely completely on these moneymakers to provide them with entertainment for that would be the death of true moviemaking.[/IMG]

[IMG] I think you missed the point. [/IMG]

__________________

Bunker Wise, are you insinuating that a DVD is not a household object crafted by hard working individuals just trying to make a living? Because if you are, then you are completely wrong.

If you're so concerned with the dumbing down of society then perhaps you should take more time carefully constructing your arguments, and learn more about the subjects you're trying to talk about rather than derailing your own thread pointlessly chatting about chocolate and evading the real issues by saying you're just joking and aren't completely serious (glad you're starting to take it more serious now though). Look up the word art in several dictionaries, look up all of the words used to describe it, and look up any words in any of those definitions that you don't fully understand so that you map it's full semantic range. It's called a word study. I'd be surprised if you've ever done one. I doubt you will in this case, but I'd love to be wrong (I suspect it will be too much work for you). If you do maybe then you'll understand that being motivated by greed does not exclude something from qualifying as art.

I find it just a little ironic that you said, "...Deadpool is an examples of how dumbed down comedy in Marvel has become."

You admitted that you used a double standard. You should know a double standard is a fallacy in the logic of your argumemt, which means your argument has a massive error. So thank you for admitting that you're wrong.

I should also point out that cinema is actually a combination of many art forms. Acting is art, directing is art, cinematography is art, set design is art, screenwriting is art, and there are other artistic fields involved I did not mention. You mentioned crafting household objects, that is exactly what prop design is. Maybe the big star was a talentless hack, but destroying it is also completely disrespectful towards all the other people who are striving to pursue their dreams of working in cinema. If there wasn't a ton of money involved it wouldn't create the opportunities for these people to do what they love, even if they have to work on some projects that aren't as good as others, don't turn out as well, and get screwed up by a board room of corporate executives looking at marketing statistics.

Destroying movies you don't like isn't going to save society from being dumbed down. If that is your concern then you need to look at the education system. You should probably worry about your own education first. Your grammar is poor, you need to learn more about logic and semantic range, and you need to focus more attention on useful things rather than meaningless banter. If you educate yourself more then you can make more of a difference on society. Destroying DVD's is a really bad way of trying to go about making the world a better place. It sounds like you are just rationalizing to justify your emotive behaviour. We really need to stop our governments from wasting so much of the tax payer's money on lousy public schools, give people back more of their money, privatise more schools, and let parents decide for themselves what schools they want to send their children to.

Pssstt....Bunker doesn't really have the power of destroying all the movies he hates. So personally I wouldn't worry about him 'ruining it' for the rest of us....Unless of course he becomes a global dictator or finds super hero powers in a box of cereal.

I never engaged you in a discussion about chocolate i'm always right to the point with you. Which must have irritated you somewhat because you have written a whole bloody essay for me to read. But since I am a fair guy I read all of it

And speaking as an authority on myself I never admitted I was wrong you seem to be pointlessly splitting hairs hoping something sticks hoping I slip up or something. If you think getting rid of a soulless money making movie is a disservice to those creating the DVDs you're wrong. people who do those kind of jobs will always work on DVDs if not one another it's a trivial argument to say the least. But the person who will get affected if the movie goes on to be made is the original director assuming these Hollywood producers and moneymakers take control of his film. as I said this happens a lot of directors You can't just playfully deny that this is not an issue.

And also you should focus more on this argument rather than just trying to win it. A lot can be learnt from this conversation. But you're not going to learn if you got your head in the sand. And I agree with you that acting is art lighting is art there is a lot of art in a film but if the core root of that film has no soul and just made for the sake of money the art is wasted on that film. People get their feelings hurt every day I'd rather a few people get their feelings hurt because some tacky film got thrown out the window than the other way round.

And yes there's always been a ton of money involved in big Hollywood films but rather than these big Hollywood producers trying to change those films in order to make money they should give the money to films that have a hard-working visionary director. Who is worth investing in.

And explaining myself to you time and time again is quite tiresome so forgive me for the grammar. But maybe you should focus more on your understanding of what I'm telling you. But again as an authority on my self I will decide what parts of my knowledge need expanding. Which if I'm to be honest your passive aggressiveness probably stems from an insecurity of knowledge you have on this topic. And on this double standard misunderstanding The way I see it if half an apple is rotten it's a rotten apple same principle with a movie.

And as for the definition of art i'm surprised you rely on a dictionary to tell you what art is which obviously no words can describe art. Its something we feel and create it comes from deep inside of ourselves and it can't be described verbally. And when people do attempt to describe it art means different things to different people you can't pinpoint it in some dictionary.

And any film with the intentions of creating art i'm sure will appeal to many people if not maybe just a little. Money making films on the other hand are insulting to the art world especially when misguided people pretend that they are art. If art is not drawn from a deep or meaningful place then it is not art at all. But there are always the alluded fans who see the art where there is none but art is a precious thing, and anything that poses as art that is not sincere should be stripped away and if it upsets a few people then so be it. If history has taught us anything it that true beauty and art will be remembered. But in a world we live in now where art is so commonly degraded I say it's natural to worried about what is to be remembered in the future

Heh, well at least he admitted Deadpool is art, and since that was the basis for why he thought it was wrong to destroy Egyptian artifacts he technically admitted it's wrong to smash them. It's just too bad he didn't realise it.

Try reading an entire book someday.