Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?

Honestly guys, I think this discussion is just going to keep going around in circles, so I don't see a point in continuing with it. Ezrangel has already shown that they're completely unable to spot their blatant and unsubtle contradictions, regardless of how clearly they're pointed out, so I don't see this discussion going anywhere.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Lol I didn't notice that.

Good to see you guys are having fun.



Provided to you by the one and only... Mr Minio!

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

I have just watched his films and you can clearly see that Lynch does have a dinstinct surreal style so instead of focusing on the plot, I enjoyed his films a lot more the second time.

What I mean with objective is that you can’t say any director who is good or great whatever is Lynch, Nolan, raimi, Jackson and say they are mediocre or hacks.

You can see the directing, techniques and praise they have gotten.

In the case of Snyder and bay. You can day they’re hacks based on critics and general consensus. That would be not hating

Hope this helps. The opinion of critics and outsiders is easily, easily some evidence.*

Feel free to disagree. But something isn’t considered great of amazing by the entire world because they’re "casuals" or "they don’t know anything" about films.

That’s what I mean.

Stop bringing your rational thinking around here. What am I supposed to do with that? Listen? Learn? Pffft! No thanks!

Maybe we could ask Ezrangel if he hates James Wan. If he does, that may resolve all our differences.

Please explain what specific elements in films by any of the directors you just named (either good or bad), how they use them, and what about their singular use makes that director good or bad.

I love a good rerun. I haven't seen this one in a while.

I do like James Wan films

Saw, Fast 7 and Conjuring are all great and enjoyable films that I have seen multiple times.

And last thing; I would end the discussion here. Not the biggest expert of technical aspects tbh (but I have seen multiple breakdowns and analyzed a few scenes from that directors).

Yeah, it's something alright. Easily, easily something. And something? Isn't nothing.

__________________

We are not worthy

I’ll say this about Ezrangel: He’s consistently inconsistent.

For what it's worth, Michael Bay has two films in the Criterion Collection (twice as many as Nolan, lol).

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Nolan famously loves watching Bay films.

There is no record of Bay returning the compliment.

Exactly. I know what’s mise en scene, 180 degree rule, one take and can see if a film is directed well or not but I am not the biggest expert in telling someone why a scene is good 100% and one is bad

Nolan has one with Following btw.

Bay is also appreciated by Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Nolan and McQuarrie.

He is an hack. But he does have some recognizable things, called Bayhem.

As I recall, Nolan watched the 2017 version of Justice League and warned Snyder against ever watching it himself.

I have trouble thinking of Bay and Snyder as hacks because they have such recognisable style even if the individual movies as a whole aren't necessarily good, which is more than I can say for countless other directors.

.

He's got also more than James Cameron or Villenueve.

And countless other directors have more than either of them put together. It's like these kinds of "objective" criteria are always a little arbitrary.

In my opinion... there’s always a sense of objectivity.

For example: directors on the same level as Orson Welles and Kubrick.

I'd say: critical reviews, awards, and all-time (or decade) lists can give you a sense of how good a director is considered. Also general consensus is good to know that.

Now, whatever someone likes him or not; that’s a purely subjective thing and the personal favorite director list too.

"This is 10x better than X" or "this is garbage an hack" is hating, so I would always say, make constructive criticism.