- 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: .
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:17 pm to Sho Nuff
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:17 pm to Sho Nuff
quote:
Oh I agree about much what you say here. But I'm not trying to make it to be the best of all-time or anything like that. At the same time, when people try too hard to be different, it's the same lame thing.
So you extol the idea of people having different opinions but if someone doesn't like what you like then they are "trying too hard to be different?" Make up your mind.
1
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:20 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Did you even care to read my response?
Stay with me; I was not saying you do indeed think BV would be higher on your all-time list than SoTL. I was saying it wouldn't surprise me is you and your buddy Blue Velvet did though.
And hey! Not surprisingly:
quote:
And yeah BV is ahead of SotL for me, no question.
BTW, you want me to take you seriously when you throw out extremes like this:
quote:
someone doesn't think SotL is the greatest movie of all-time so they are a hipster, pretentious artsy fake?
I never once said it's the best film of all-time. I said Top 100.
But I would love to see your 200 films that are better than SoTL. That would be a riot.
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:20 pm to Sho Nuff
I was actually just trying to be nice. Blue Velvet is closer to 50 times better than SoTL.
Maybe 60.
Maybe 60.
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:21 pm to Sho Nuff
quote:Will 400 do?
But I would love to see your 200 films that are better than SoTL.
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:27 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
"Don't agree with me? You must be an artsy fig just trying to be cool."
Are you guys trying to be obtuse? We're talking 100 films. Not top 10 or even top 50. Saying you don't agree with me would be easy to narrow down if the list was small. Saying a film that is on any reputable list out there as a top 100 film, is actually , a top 100 film is not a small sample size or "groupthink"
quote:
Never mind the merits of their beef with SoTL.
He still never gave any real beef. The most I saw was that Hopkins character was a bit "cartoonish". And a generic list of thoughts on films.
Where would you rank SoTL in all-time films? And why would it be there (i.e. where did it not live up to your standards)?
Blue Velvet better than SoTL though
This post was edited on 3/19/13 at 6:37 pm
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:33 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
So you extol the idea of people having different opinions but if someone doesn't like what you like then they are "trying too hard to be different?" Make up your mind.
Trying to twist eh? Fair attempt.
I'll try again; I am not arguing for SoTL to be the best film. Not even in the top 50. I agree that there are many films better.
But when most people, and people who actually get paid to critique, and most reputable sources list a film in their top 100 of all-time, then yes, when people start talking about 200 better films are trying too hard. (I know, a long run on sentence).
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:36 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
I was actually just trying to be nice. Blue Velvet is closer to 50 times better than SoTL. Maybe 60.
quote:
Will 400 do?
Can't really take you serious on film anymore, but yes, I would love to see a list of 400 films that are better than SoTL.
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:36 pm to Sho Nuff
quote:
Stay with me; I was not saying you do indeed think BV would be higher on your all-time list than SoTL. I was saying it wouldn't surprise me is you and your buddy Blue Velvet did though.
And hey! Not surprisingly:
Hey when someone does a lot o generalizing, it's hard to pick out the targets.
quote:
BTW, you want me to take you seriously when you throw out extremes like this:
Can you not read?
quote:
And yeah BV is ahead of SotL for me, no question.
How is that "throwing out an extreme?"
Please tell me.
quote:
I never once said it's the best film of all-time. I said Top 100.
And I never said it was the worst film of all-time, you see how generalizations work?
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:44 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Hey when someone does a lot o generalizing, it's hard to pick out the targets.
That's your answer to me after correctly pointing out that you're the type of guy to put BV in front of SoTL? That's not a generalization. It's called truth.
quote:
How is that "throwing out an extreme?"
Please tell me.
Now I know you're doing this crap on purpose. Here's what you said:
quote:
someone doesn't think SotL is the greatest movie of all-time so they are a hipster, pretentious artsy fake?
To which I said:
quote:
BTW, you want me to take you seriously when you throw out extremes like this:
Not quite sure why you're trying to lie now Freaux? (edited to make sure you know I'm kidding here
) Way better to just stick with what's written.
quote:
And I never said it was the worst film of all-time, you see how generalizations work?
But I never said you did. See the difference with you trying to make it seem like I said SoTL is the greatest of all-time?
It's cool, I was just hoping a professional critic like you would be able to give some reasons why SoTL isn't a "great" film or now, especially, how a film like BV would be in front of it.
This post was edited on 3/19/13 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 3/19/13 at 6:59 pm to Sho Nuff
I haven't read through all of the last 2 pages but why are you even trying to compare these two as if they have anything whatsoever in common?
If he's being objective in his criticism, maybe there are certain elements that he appreciates more in Blue Velvet than he does The Silence of the Lambs. Maybe he simply was entertained with one over the other. It's his opinion though - no need to attack him over it.
If he's being objective in his criticism, maybe there are certain elements that he appreciates more in Blue Velvet than he does The Silence of the Lambs. Maybe he simply was entertained with one over the other. It's his opinion though - no need to attack him over it.
Posted on 3/19/13 at 7:21 pm to Tiger Ryno
I'd frick me
Posted on 3/19/13 at 7:32 pm to Sho Nuff
quote:
That's your answer to me after correctly pointing out that you're the type of guy to put BV in front of SoTL? That's not a generalization. It's called truth.
So one single element of truth makes an entire generalization true?
quote:
Now I know you're doing this crap on purpose. Here's what you said:
Can you read your own post, look a few posts up:
quote:quote:
And yeah BV is ahead of SotL for me, no question.
BTW, you want me to take you seriously when you throw out extremes like this:
That is a direct quote from you. Here, I'll link it for you: LINK
Now if you misquoted yourself, that's one thing, just responding as posting.
quote:
Way better to just stick with what's written.
And?
quote:
But I never said you did. See the difference with you trying to make it seem like I said SoTL is the greatest of all-time?
Yeah, that was my point. Your entire reaction is based on an emotional response to me saying SotL is a very good movie, but not great. I don't see your point here.
quote:
It's cool, I was just hoping a professional critic like you would be able to give some reasons why SoTL isn't a "great" film or now, especially, how a film like BV would be in front of it.
So a few things with this statement:
1. Then why the hell are you engaging me in this sort of conversation when this is what you really want? Why haven't you actually tried to talk about the movie, when I already did. Granted, when I answer this questions is has more to do with "What is great?" Rather than, "Is SotL great?" and that is a small distinction up for discussion.
2. And why is the onus on me to prove that it's not great. So are all films assumed great and it's up to the viewer to critique and prove that it isn't? That's a terrible way to think about it, and makes for a negative view of this discussion in the first place.
3. If your assumption is "The film is automatically great and you have to prove me wrong," which is YOUR approach, then I'm automatically generating the negative response and being combative with you, there's no way around it. And when someone takes a stand like that, they are going to defend it regardless of truth or the discussion, because we're human. So there's really no point.
4. And if you really wanted to talk about the film why did you do so like this:
quote:quote:
What kind of great?
An overall amazing, historically important and influential film? No, not at all.
A great mix of writing, acting, editing, etc.? Eh, probably so, but maybe not. It's certainly a character piece and it is great at that. Not sure the rest is really up to snuff. But it's debatable.
<image>Watch out guys, we're dealing with a badass here.
People make me laugh. Yeah, the movie is just ok
Where is the film critique here? The serious concern for the discussion? Please show me in the internet meme and the laugh where your opinion is so well displayed for the world?
Posted on 3/19/13 at 7:38 pm to Sho Nuff
quote:
I would love to see a list of 400 films that are better than SoTL.
TSPDT
Silence of the Lambs - #530
It is just a subjective ranking of movies but I think that is a good spot for SOTL (among domestic films it is probably in the top few hundred according to this ranking). The fact that it is included on many lists, no matter what position, makes me think that it is thought of as a great movie by many critics. Is the movie historically significant and groundbreaking? No. Is it on par with masterpieces by the likes of Hitchcock, Welles, Kurasawa, Kubrick, Fellini, Ford etc.? Probably not. It is, at least, a really cool, really smart psychological thriller with a few legendary roles. Aside from the acting, the thing that makes this movie "great" is the novel that it is based off of. Any movie about a serial killer is going to be dark, cool, and interesting in some way, shape or form. I honestly do not know enough about film to say "Yes, this is in fact a great film." I know that I enjoy it, almost everyone I know who has seen it likes it as well. It is preserved in the National Film Registry. All signs point to it being a middle of the road great film. My answer to your question: I dont know for sure, but probably so...maybe.
Posted on 3/19/13 at 8:03 pm to Fenwick86
1. Great post.
2.
2.
quote:Like I said, I could easily name 400 better films than SoTL. That doesn't mean I don't love watching it or that it isn't, arguably, a great film.
Silence of the Lambs - #530
Posted on 3/19/13 at 8:10 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
Like I said, I could easily name 400 better films than SoTL. That doesn't mean I don't love watching it or that it isn't, arguably, a great film.
Exactly.
And personally I like to think even 1,000 great films is too many. People are losing sight of what "great," means, per this thread. But that's just me.
I'd easily rank in the Top 500 films or so. I'm just not sure where the "great" line is drawn. Or even HOW we draw the line (I like to thnk this board is partly about that very battle). But I do know it SHOULD be drawn somewhere.
This post was edited on 3/19/13 at 8:12 pm
Posted on 3/19/13 at 8:16 pm to Fenwick86
Agreed with Blue Velvet, great post. I certainly don't agree with TSPDT. Just a quick look at their lists on the home page tells me there would be a lot of disagreement.
No hard feelings, we'll never agree on it so no point in going forward.
I just think sometimes people try too hard. Sounds like you guys have genuine film knowledge and are big film fans like me. You just have some terrible rankings
quote:
Blue Velvet
quote:
Freauxzen
No hard feelings, we'll never agree on it so no point in going forward.
I just think sometimes people try too hard. Sounds like you guys have genuine film knowledge and are big film fans like me. You just have some terrible rankings
Posted on 3/19/13 at 8:20 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
An overall amazing, historically important and influential film? No, not at all.
A great mix of writing, acting, editing, etc.? Eh, probably so, but maybe not. It's certainly a character piece and it is great at that. Not sure the rest is really up to snuff. But it's debatable.
Get over yourself
Posted on 3/19/13 at 8:24 pm to Sho Nuff
quote:
Agreed with Blue Velvet, great post. I certainly don't agree with TSPDT. Just a quick look at their lists on the home page tells me there would be a lot of disagreement.
Uh yeah, same here. Lots I would disagree with.
quote:
No hard feelings, we'll never agree on it so no point in going forward.
quote:
I just think sometimes people try too hard.
I won't disagree with that, there are some who do.
quote:
Sounds like you guys have genuine film knowledge and are big film fans like me. You just have some terrible rankings
So do you
This post was edited on 3/19/13 at 8:26 pm
Posted on 3/19/13 at 8:25 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
And personally I like to think even 1,000 great films is too many. People are losing sight of what "great," means, per this thread. But that's just me.
I think it really depends on definition. The top 50 films of all-time are more than just "great" to me (could be more or less, but that's a good #). I would call the top 10 films masterpieces. Probably even the top 20.
Top 1,000? Well, when you look at the entire history of film and how many have been made, 1,000 really isn't some crazy amount to think are "great". But different people have different definitions.
As an example, I would say Blue Velvet is a great film. But in no way would it be in front of SoTL. Still a great film to me. Different genres, different times, lots of things change what films look like year after year.
quote:
I'm just not sure where the "great" line is drawn. Or even HOW we draw the line (I like to thnk this board is partly about that very battle). But I do know it SHOULD be drawn somewhere.
It's hard to limit a specific # of movies that can be labeled "great" and then they have to go to being "very good", then "good", etc. And it doesn't take away from the films in front of them. Now, if comparing exact genres and premises, then we could talk about which ones are great or not.
Posted on 3/19/13 at 8:31 pm to Sho Nuff
quote:
I think it really depends on definition. The top 50 films of all-time are more than just "great" to me (could be more or less, but that's a good #). I would call the top 10 films masterpieces. Probably even the top 20.
Agreed. That's by I started this thread. Hopkins' lecter is one of the most memorable performances but the film is really alot like a John Grisham movie, and I don't mean that negatively, but it's not in my top 10 or even my top 50
But then again I think the empire strikes back is a masterpiece so what do I know
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News