Stewball wrote:ShogunRua wrote:God, you're obsessed with that dumb little flick, aren't you? The "nut" behind my dislike is that it's a generic, cliched romance movie with the only creativity being that the love interest is AI. And with 30 minutes of content stretched to 2 hours, it's neither meaningful nor entertaining.
I went back and looked at PP's quote (actually a YouTube link), and it looks like you're doing the same thing PP did by linking to it; associating himself with a defense based entirely on name calling and innuendo. The people who use the Ad Hominem attack rarely realize that's what they're doing--it just seems so obvious to them that "I'm right and therefore, you're stupid".
What are you talking about?! This entire paragraph has me utterly confused.
Stewball wrote:But it isn't, and likely that's the problem--on some level anywy.
Don't you sense a disconnect, though? I get my "meaning" and "truth" from writers like Murakami, Conrad, Kundera, etc. and if we're talking movies, directors like Bergman, Lumet, and Fellini. You get your "meaning" and "truth" from cliche Hollywood genre flicks like Her, Midnight in Paris, and Undisputed.
That's completely fine, by itself. People find inspiration in different places, and by no means does the source of inspiration say anything about its result. (Awful filmmakers have been inspired by Bergman, and great filmmakers have been inspired by exploitation sleaze)
However, given what each of us is inspired by, isn't a little fucking ridiculous for you to claim that you're the deep intellectual and I'm the Philistine because I don't appreciate the same brain-dead Hollywood garbage you do? Especially considering your avoidance of subtitled movies? And ignorance/avoidance of those filmmakers and writers?
It's almost like a child saying an adult is a stupid poopie-head because they're not dazzled by the brilliant intellectual transcendence of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Stewball wrote:No, at least not as much, which is why I said "somewhat". What was the point? Did it have something to say? Was it anything more than mildly entertaining?
It was far more than just "mildly" entertaining, and it did a fairly plausible job of painting the realities of a small town and its denizens, even if it did occasionally veer into cliche. There was even balance and nuance to certain characters, like the older newscaster brother, mother Kate, and Woody himself. They have both good and bad qualities, although both are generally positive individuals. (Older brother and Kate more obviously than Woody)
Its insight into a small town and provincial families (look at their various reactions to Woody's win and how it changes over time) isn't original or Earth-shattering, but there is definitely some substance there, unlike Her's empty allusions or vague, teenage angst.
Stewball wrote:So, you drag out the big name-calling guns, knowing I hate teeny-bopper shit, which is almost always a sign of serous self-doubt.
I actually didn't know that at all. In fact, it surprises me.
I remember how obsessed you were with Miley Cyrus. And how many teen movies you watch, enjoying many of them. And how you like more nubile, petite, and young-looking actresses like Mila Kunis, and hate older ones. (The highlight being when I posted a picture of the phenomenal Christina Hendricks, and you called her a disgusting and ugly cow)
So I would actually imagine you enjoy "teeny-bopper shit", as you put it.