- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: To Which I Admit I was Wrong (Just once)
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:08 pm to illuminatic
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:08 pm to illuminatic
quote:
Ok I read the whole thing and I'm even more annoyed now. Who is the goddamned director?
this
u for not naming the director your OP is nothing more than the thinking mans troll thread you focker.
0
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:08 pm to BOSCEAUX
quote:
You must be talking about Terrence Malick.
Winner.
There was no code, just wanted to keep it focused on other things, not necessarily a discussion of Malick.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:09 pm to illuminatic
quote:
Message Posted by illuminatic Thin Red Line wasn't his first film though.
It was the first one he saw.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:09 pm to illuminatic
quote:
Thin Red Line wasn't his first film though.
Yeah my mistak. Changed. It was the first film I did watch, that's all I meant.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:10 pm to Freauxzen
Got it. I was trying to think of guys that made a war film first.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:11 pm to Freauxzen
I love his cinematography and respect it but I'm not a fan of his storytelling style. Pretentious is always the first word that comes to my mind when someone mentions Malik.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:11 pm to Freauxzen
I will say, I was kept on my toes thru that long message, however, each paragraph that went by I wished you would have just said the directors name. In using a single example and painting the picture without letting everyone know WTF you are talking about, it actually took away from the message IMO.
I just wanted to know what fricking movies you were talking about.
I just wanted to know what fricking movies you were talking about.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:13 pm to Baloo
quote:Yup.
Malick?
quote:
I do like discussion and I do try and live up the this simple credo: it's fun to like things. There are things I don't like, but there is so much out there to enjoy, I'd rather spend my time praising those things I like then decrying what I don't. Besides, it's a big world and it takes different strokes to move it.
I agree. Although I think the more we see things we don't like, and understand them, the better we can know what we do like.
quote:
I may disagree with someone's impassioned defense of a movie I dislike, but I appreciate it. Maybe it makes me see the film in a new light, or maybe it gets me to check out a different work by the same director, and maybe give it a more fair first watch.
I've pointed this out before, but there are more films and TV shows in existence and available to me than I could ever watch. It is a massive amount of stuff in the world. And it's fun to get to explore all of that, and we need other people to help us on our own quest through the wilderness. This board gives you ideas on what to seek out next, and it's always fun to debate the finer points of something you love.
Exactly. It's really about change, both looking for it and allowing it. I mean, the idea of art is to communicate, and that, in effect, can change SOMETHING in us, no matter how slight.
But sometimes no matter how much we can detest something, there's a chance that it's something we can really enjoy if we just gave it a chance.
quote:
But Wes Anderson's films still suck.
One more chance?
I haven't seen Grand Budapest yet though. I liked Rushmore enough.Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:13 pm to Freauxzen
I had a similar epiphany with Aranofsky that you had with Malik.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:14 pm to SouthOfSouth
quote:
I will say, I was kept on my toes thru that long message, however, each paragraph that went by I wished you would have just said the directors name. In using a single example and painting the picture without letting everyone know WTF you are talking about, it actually took away from the message IMO.
I just wanted to know what fricking movies you were talking about.
Fair enough,
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:15 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
One more chance? I haven't seen Grand Budapest yet though. I liked Rushmore enough.
How many chances can I gave this guy? But Mrs. Baloo really wants to see Grand Budapest Hotel, so I'm likely to see it eventually. I do love Ralph Fiennes. And she's put up with a lot of movies she hates on account of me.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:16 pm to BOSCEAUX
quote:
I had a similar epiphany with Aranofsky that you had with Malik.
Pi did something different for me long ago, not as profound as Tree of Life, but it made me start seeking out experimental and indie film far more than I had before.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:19 pm to Baloo
quote:
How many chances can I gave this guy?
Yeah I'm not sure on this one. Maybe when you're 70 Wes Anderson will make the right film.
quote:
But Mrs. Baloo really wants to see Grand Budapest Hotel, so I'm likely to see it eventually. I do love Ralph Fiennes. And she's put up with a lot of movies she hates on account of me.
Always a good reason. That's why I watched Pitch Perfect. Wasn't a terrible film by any stretch.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:25 pm to Baloo
I think that Wes Anderson's style probably isn't something that you come around to. You either think it's funny in it's wierd, quirky sort of way, or you think that it's stupid. At times and depending on my mood, he can bore the hell out of me.
I thought Grand Budapest was one his better films... if you like that kind of style.
In the spirit of this thread I like him because I think that he's something a bit different. If you have to give me one thing then please give me variety. Getting exposed to different ideas and different experiences is what keeps me coming back to movies. This place does enhances that because I can be shown things from a different perspective and pointed towards some things that I wouldn't have thought about.
I thought Grand Budapest was one his better films... if you like that kind of style.
In the spirit of this thread I like him because I think that he's something a bit different. If you have to give me one thing then please give me variety.
Getting exposed to different ideas and different experiences is what keeps me coming back to movies. This place does enhances that because I can be shown things from a different perspective and pointed towards some things that I wouldn't have thought about.Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:29 pm to Peazey
quote:
I think that Wes Anderson's style probably isn't something that you come around to. You either think it's funny in it's wierd, quirky sort of way, or you think that it's stupid. At times and depending on my mood, he can bore the hell out of me.
I don't know, I think there's a chance, but it depends on how much time you can waste. I mean theoretically we shouldn't waste any but we're human so we do eventually.
Just like I said, every two months, when you do a normal watch pick something that's completely out of the ballpark. That's all.
quote:
This place does enhances that because I can be shown things from a different perspective and pointed towards some things that I wouldn't have thought about.
Exactly. Enough people pushed on Malick that kept me intrigued. I just needed the right spark to watch his films. Then, I could finally "get it." I hate that concept really because it's incredibly vague, but sometimes that's what it takes.
Difference is a good thing, and we usually get a good balance around here. We should celebrate that more often. We can still fight, but make up and enjoy the discussion.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:30 pm to Peazey
Yeah, and I find it strange that the Coens are my favorite directors, and they are also often accused of being quirky. I think it's because of what their goals are. The Coens use quirk to reveal greater truths about the human condition, and the absurdity just highlights it while I feel Anderson uses quirk to obscure human emotion.
I've thought a lot in the past years about David Foster Wallace's essay on the New Earnestness. And while I was a firm believer in detached irony in my youth, I've come almost 180 on it. I know far prefer things that are earnest and unafraid to be that worst of things in pop culture, deeply uncool. I find I'd rather something err on the side of maudlin because at least they are trying to connect emotionally.
It's like Winston Churchill for the arts. If you aren't into ironic detachment when you are young, you have no brain, but if you do not believe in earnestness when you are old, you have no soul.
I've thought a lot in the past years about David Foster Wallace's essay on the New Earnestness. And while I was a firm believer in detached irony in my youth, I've come almost 180 on it. I know far prefer things that are earnest and unafraid to be that worst of things in pop culture, deeply uncool. I find I'd rather something err on the side of maudlin because at least they are trying to connect emotionally.
It's like Winston Churchill for the arts. If you aren't into ironic detachment when you are young, you have no brain, but if you do not believe in earnestness when you are old, you have no soul.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:30 pm to Freauxzen
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:34 pm to Baloo
quote:
The Coens use quirk to reveal greater truths about the human condition, and the absurdity just highlights it
Oh A Serious Man. That's another film I really really enjoyed. Even for a Coen movie.
quote:
I've thought a lot in the past years about David Foster Wallace's essay on the New Earnestness. And while I was a firm believer in detached irony in my youth, I've come almost 180 on it. I know far prefer things that are earnest and unafraid to be that worst of things in pop culture, deeply uncool. I find I'd rather something err on the side of maudlin because at least they are trying to connect emotionally.
It's like Winston Churchill for the arts. If you aren't into ironic detachment when you are young, you have no brain, but if you do not believe in earnestness when you are old, you have no soul.
Bingo.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:36 pm to Freauxzen
I think you had him pegged correctly
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:39 pm to BOSCEAUX
quote:
You must be talking about Terrence Malik.
This was my thought
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 3:40 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News