Once again, I gave you an example and it did what you claim it didn't. It's not rocket science.
Your response was "I could give you loads of examples", and yet you seem overly proud of contributing
an example. This is what I'm talking about with regards to convos with you, how the goalposts gradually shift and drift the more replies you make, gradually revealing someone who 'makes it up as they go along'.
Yes, America had heart - and I enjoyed the first half of the movie quite a bit.
You can have heart in a Hollywood check-list movie. Typically, suits dictate the overall structure and what must go into the film - but the artists themselves have an influence as well.
Of course they do. And of course pretty much all team-made products will have influences from vast numbers of people. Even fully auteur'ed movies will have elements that other people have suggested and contributed to. Whether one has more 'heart' than another is laughably vague, especially considering you state one of them is full of "Whedonisms", implying that there was indeed plenty of individual 'heart' from Whedon in that project. Once again, your points are just a jumbled mess of making stuff up as you need to.
Yes yes, I'm a lunatic because I'm pointing out the flaws in your masterful theory.
I get it
You don't though. You haven't pointed out flaws in my theories because I'm not presenting any theories, I'm stating what is, for most people, common-sense. If you analyse the phrase "common-sense" then you'll understand why what you are postulating is "lunatic". Let's look at the (il)logical leaps as you make them:
1. You don't like Marvel movies.
2. You don't like Marvel movies since 2008.
3. The discussion has provided examples of two Marvel movies, one from 2011 and one from 2012, long after Marvel movies had become regular features of the cinematic world.
4. You are obviously still watching Marvel movies with a certain level of dedication some 5 years after establishing to yourself that you don't like them and that even one that you like wouldn't be worth more than 6/10.
5. You are then using a genre you don't like but persistently still watch as a means to debate the topic of subjectivity versus objectivity when you have already established that you have a very strong irrational bias against said genre. Irrational biases are fine, we all have them, but, as I said, I personally wouldn't use RomComs as my example in such a debate, because I'm
aware that I have an irrational (lunatic) bias against them.
I'm afraid you've got comics and the ancient past confused with the current reality.
No I haven't. And 15 years ago is not the ancient past. Kinda misses that mark by a few thousand years.
Anyway, they're mainstream now and have been for a long time.
They are not mainstream movies by any rational criteria. Mainstream movies have a very specific formula, usually involving a combination of drama, comedy, romance and a sentimental happy ending. Just because mainstream movies no longer sell tickets, does not mean that the remaining popular cults are mainstream movies. Beauty and the Beast is a mainstream movie. Titanic is a mainstream movie. Movies about men in suits of armour killing fantastical beasts is not mainstream entertainment, it is just a popular cult.
The current formula for these ULTRA mainstream movies is based on Iron Man from 2008.
Applying the the world ULTRA in capitals doesn't mean your point is more meaningful, it means you're applying the same point but with more
physical force.
That set the tone in terms of the emphasis on humor and not taking anything too seriously.
The X-Men movies and Spiderman movies were doing all that long before Iron Man. As were most historical comic movies… because the they're based on… comics.
That worked - and it obviously worked for you as well.
The first America had less of that, which is probably part of why I enjoyed it more. Again, I like things that don't fit into blueprint formulas.
Again, "disproving" your theory.
Your posts usually fit a very predictable blueprint formula, as already mentioned by myself a few times. Regarding 'disproving' aggregates, whatever that means, we've already established that individual taste likely deviates from the specific score, I mean, obviously, an aggregate is the sum of lots of different scores. What you're own personal view of one movie is is pretty irrelevant to the point, the point is being intelligent enough to understand why the aggregate is what it is.
You even raised this very point yourself a couple of posts back, in that it takes a certain amount of pre-knowledge to be able to make good use of the information provided. For example, a good rating for one Saw movie and a poor rating for another Saw movie likely relates to how the set-ups and gore works rather than an appraisal of how well the lead actor performs their method. But this is… common-sense, right…?
Anyway, since this has very quickly devolved into an insult-match - as you don't really handle opposing opinions well at all, I will leave you to it.
FYI: You're going back on ignore. Just to save you the time it would take to throw up all over me in your next reply
Interesting reaction. Seems a bit of a loony reaction, but if that's your choice…
