What I've Been Watching: The Catch-All Film Thread

Originally Posted by lackblogger
I have no idea why you'd equate distaste for an entire genre as something that disproves the value of aggregate scoring. I'm not a huge fan of RomComs, but I wouldn't disregard all RomComs as having 'meaningless' aggregate scores and, should I wish to see a RomCom, perhaps because a significant other has requested watching one, then the aggregates would at least give me a guide to choosing one that might at least have a better chance of being watchable, as the aggregate will include lots of people who also don't like RomComs.

Because that's what it does - it lessens the value by way of example.

We're talking about our opinions, though. We can't "prove" or "disprove" anything here - though maybe that's your intention?

In that case, good luck

I could give you countless examples of how the subjective is not the objective - but you should be able to understand without them.

The current aggregate for the first Avengers movie is 8.1, and I personally thought this was one of the best examples of modern super hero movies. Captain America: The First Avenger on the other hand, I found to be a really rather boring and disappointing movie, and that has an aggregate of 6.9. If someone didn't know which one to buy for their kid and were trying to get one that was at least possibly interesting to watch then the aggregate pretty much nails it. Sure, you could argue the semantics of individual taste, but, to all intents and purposes and for all considerations regarding 'useful information', the aggregate scoring seems to work extremely well, because the first Avengers movie is indeed objectively a lot better than the first Captain America movie.

I thought Captain America was vastly superior to Avengers. To me, Avengers was a stupid popcorn movie full of Whedon try-hard wisecracks and no heart. America, at least, had heart. Also, I have a thing for Nazi plots

Again, "disproving" your theory.

That said, I wouldn't put either above 6/10.

I'm really not a big fan of check-list Hollywood movies. I know some people enjoy them a lot more than I do, though.

While there will be people who think differently, for possibly obscure reasons, the aggregate is 100x more accurate and useful than any single wall of text about the two movies.

I think we understand that you think so. Which is fine by me.

You seem closer to the mainstream than I, which means it might just work for you.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
Because that's what it does - it disproves it by way of example. I could give you countless examples of how the subjective is not the objective - but you should be able to understand without them.

You could, but, as per usual, you cite barely any examples and simply reiterate the philosophy of subjectivity, which anyone can do with anything and is of little value beyond argumentation for the sake of argumentation.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
I thought Captain America was vastly superior to Avengers. To me, Avengers was a stupid popcorn movie full of Whedon try-hard wisecracks and no heart. America, at least, had heart. Also, I have a thing for Nazi plots

Again, disproving your theory.

That said, I wouldn't put either above 6/10.

So you consider one to be vastly superior to the other and would still rate them both under 6/10? You think one is superior because it has Nazis in it and that's your only notable qualifier? Oh, something about having heart? I thought you said they were all generic production-line movies?

I guess the good thing about aggregates is that they do indeed minimise the impact of lunatics. Seems to me you like to make stuff up as you go along in these kind of debates, and just kick back to the 'undefeatable' general philosophy of 'everything is subjective' when you feel intellectually threatened.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
I think we understand that you think so. Which is fine by me.

You seem closer to the mainstream than I, which means it might just work for you.

What is the mainstream? Anything that's popular?

I guess its news to you, but superhero movies are not mainstream products, they are cult products which have attained mass-appeal due to high quality production values and heavy financial investment. It wasn't too long ago that a superhero movie was considered both niche and a potentially risky investment. I suspect you are like those Coldplay fans who 'liked them when they were small and 'indy' '.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
You could, but, as per usual, you cite barely any examples and simply reiterate the philosophy of subjectivity, which anyone can do with anything and is of little value beyond argumentation for the sake of argumentation.

Once again, I gave you an example and it did what you claim it didn't. It's not rocket science.

Yes, I understand that anyone who disagrees with you and has actual points - argues for the sake of argument. Otherwise, there would be the possiblity of you being wrong - which obviously doesn't compute.

I remember that now

So you consider one to be vastly superior to the other and would still rate them both under 6/10? You think one is superior because it has Nazis in it and that's your only notable qualifier? Oh, something about having heart? I thought you said they were all generic production-line movies?

Let me help you out here:

2 is superior to 1. Does that mean 2 is great? No - it's just 2.

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.

But let's not get complicated, as that's not your style

I guess the good thing about aggregates is that they do indeed minimise the impact of lunatics. Seems to me you like to make stuff up as you go along in these kind of debates, and just kick back to the 'undefeatable' general philosophy 'everything is subjective' when you feel intellectually threatened.

Yes yes, I'm a lunatic because I'm pointing out the flaws in your masterful theory.

I get it

What is the mainstream? Anything that's popular?

I guess its news to you, but superhero movies are not mainstream products, they are cult products which have attained mass-appeal due to high quality production values and heavy financial investment. It wasn't too long ago that a superhero movie was considered both niche and a potentially risky investment. I suspect you are like those Coldplay fans who 'liked them when they were small and 'indy' '.

I'm afraid you've got comics and the ancient past confused with the current reality.

Anyway, they're mainstream now and have been for a long time.

The current formula for these ULTRA mainstream movies is based on Iron Man from 2008.

That set the tone in terms of the emphasis on humor and not taking anything too seriously - combined with the rather ridiculous spectacle.

This is the case for every single superhero movie since Iron Man - even the first Captain America movie, only to a lesser extent.

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.

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

Originally Posted by NewDArt
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'.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
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.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
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.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
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.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
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.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
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.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
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.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
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…?

Originally Posted by NewDArt
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…

Originally Posted by NewDArt
Meaning, if a movie has a 7/10 average score - it does NOT mean it will be a 7/10 movie for you.

True. And example?
Donnie Darko is like 100% average score everywhere (except on cracked.com ofc).
In my case it's 1/10 only because Barrymore yells juicy "fuck" at one time, otherwise it'd be zero.

You actually liked this movie ? I thought it was like -20/10. Never understood the postiive feed-back.

Originally Posted by joxer
True. And example?
Donnie Darko is like 100% average score everywhere (except on cracked.com ofc).
In my case it's 1/10 only because Barrymore yells juicy "fuck" at one time, otherwise it'd be zero.

Originally Posted by Caddy
I think once people stop expecting Kubrick masterpieces for every episode, then they can enjoy them.

The biggest mistake in Sci Fi since 2001 came out was every director copying it. Although Lucas said Star Wars was anti-American/pro-viet cong, no one ever thought it was anyway relevant to current that's what made it so enjoyable.

Look at how the first Star Trek movie or that Mars movie came out because the directors, writers and special effects people wanted to make a Kubrick film.

Originally Posted by lostforever
Bad as though phantom menace was, I still remember that fight and hence movie what 10 years later? I would not remember a single thing from the new ones in a years time.

The new movies are made to be "safe" and to appeal to the 99%. You will definitely have good time watching it but then what? As i said before, these are good a a good Michael bay movies.

My brother and I, we think, are about the only ones who realize what a complex story Phantom Menace was. We tolerated Jar Jar because we knew it was a shout out to kids. We even saw a 7 year old in front who really enjoyed Jar Jar. The best fan theory we ever read was where Jar Jar was supposed to be the Count Dooku role and that he was basically a copy off of Asimov's Mule from the Foundation series.

Originally Posted by SirJames
So, no bites on Dune? How about how Obi uses the Bene Geserit "voice" on the storm troopers on the desert planet?

Originally Posted by JDR13
I hadn't heard about this. So there's going to be a new Dune film adaption? Villeneuve now officially has my attention.

Herbert, Asimov and Kurosawa were the three main influences on Star Wars. Herbert and his ego were incensed by it and formed a club with Asimov and a few others called "SciFi writers too big for Star Wars". Remember the banquet scene in Empire?

Anyway, he either swallowed his pride or let his ego get the better of him when he allowed ILM to do the special effects for the 1984 movie.

Also, the Vulcans are the Bene Gesserit, as are the Aes Sedai in Wheel of Time, and the Terminator universe of robots enslaving humanity is also taken from Dune.

I am looking at this third (fifth?) attempt to make a Dune movie. One problem is the subject has always been too heady and involved for your average popcorn viewer.

Originally Posted by you
You actually liked this movie ? I thought it was like -20/10. Never understood the postiive feed-back.

My late brother was a huge fan of Donnie Darko

Concerning Last Jedi, I loved it, although there were things I did not love about.

I've been reading a some of the divides over it and its interesting. The main problem is it throws all the mysteries of Force Awakens away



I did enjoy that is was less noticeably derivative of Empire than Force Awakens was of New Hope. There was much more to it.

I thought was fun that it retained the same pacing problems of the two (three) stories that were going on simultaneously.

Bright - 7/10

Went in expecting nothing and came out pleasantly surprised! The whole thing worked for me even though it has some cringe!

Jackoby the orc character carried the movie I think.

Will Smith usually plays "super bad ass" characters and in this one he was playing someone who is in constant conflict with himself and I though he did fine!

I like the small touches like the flying dragon and centaur cops! Hinting at much bigger world.

Apparently I hear that sequel is on the way.

I actually enjoyed Rogue One a bit more than Last Jedi but I wouldn’t call it a mess. More of a mixed bag for me.

Think of it from an RPG perspective.

You have a buff spell which allows you an extra 10% chance to hit. Casting the buff doesn't mean you'll always hit, it means that your long-term average will improve over the course of the entire battle/stage. Aggregate scoring performs a similar task, it doesn't guarantee a hit every time, but it improves your hit-rate over time. And, like the buff, there's really no reason not to use it.

Late to the party, but I just saw The Last Jedi.

I'm not going to try to assign a numerical rating to it. I'll just say that I no longer consider TPM to be the worst Star Wars movie.

Worse than TPM? Sounds a little excessive Oh well, still looking forward to watching it eventually.

I've heard its really bad re: Last Jedi. You can search youtube and find a lot of people trashing the hell out of the film. That said, I have a friend who saw it, and liked it. So, it may be one of those movies where the opinions of others doesn't really matter, where its a much more individualist type movie where each person may see it differently. Or, maybe my friends taste in movies is shit, lol.

Anyway, I'm not planning on seeing it, just because I'm super picky and haven't liked what I've heard about it, and also basically haven't been interested in seeing any of the post original trilogy Star Wars films after the absolutely awful Phantom Menace. That film was more than enough to put me off the franchise, lol.

But here is a really funny "Hitler Rants" video about the Last Jedi, it made me laugh anyway, (no spoilers either)…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01VyZ6XWwY8&t=115s

I guess that means Metacritic and IMDb, yet again, "disproves" a certain theory

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
You can search youtube and find a lot of people trashing the hell out of the film. That said, I have a friend who saw it, and liked it.

I'd say that objectively speaking it's a very fun winter blockbuster type of movie. Subjectively speaking it's just as good or bad as someone's preconceived notion of what a Star Wars movie is supposed to be. So there.

I'm super picky and haven't liked what I've heard about it, and also basically haven't been interested in seeing any of the post original trilogy Star Wars films after the absolutely awful Phantom Menace. That film was more than enough to put me off the franchise, lol.

In that case… maybe don't bother?

Watched Last Jedi last night, wow this sucked so bad



I had hoped that after Rogue one (witch I liked enough) they learned something…

You learn something very clear about a bunch of people here every time a new Star Wars movie comes out … that much is very true.

Couldn't help myself, so I saw Last Jedi.

Right now, I'd call it the best Star Wars movie yet. Apart from the silly antics and occasionally overwrought action sequences (the "horse" riding sequence in particular was both predictable and unnecessary) - it had everything I want from Star Wars.

A few surprises along the way - and lots of touching moments for people who saw the first films as kids.

Great acting from the key characters. I have to give credit to Adam Driver, who is just terrific and the best dark side character of all the films, by far.

8/10