Movies that should never have been made and why?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Can't have that...

Jhiggy is WRONG!

[Show spoiler]

Logan

i think my eyes are watering!

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I think you make some good points, and your overall message is well received, but I don't agree with the strict 30 year rule. One of my friends who produces small films shares the same view. His rule? he refuses to watch any films made after 1976 Do I share his view? hell no. Do I see where he is coming from? yes. Most great films were made before 1980. However, I love many films made after 1980, so can't share his view.

I also agree that many filmmakers today are creativity-starved and the power of marketing has enabled them to stay lazy. Hancock pulled in 9 times what There Will Be Blood did. I rest my case. Seriously, if I'm a screenwriter, why would I bother to think up a Taxi Driver or a There Will Be Blood script, when all I need to do is envision the next super-duper character that Will Smith will play, with the same one-liners? Quality filmmaking is not rewarded in today's market.

This I agree with completely.

[Bateman,Patrick]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

You didn't understand what he meant. The fact that there were some very good movies released in the last 30 years is too obvious to even argue about, and I am sure he knows and understands that as well.

He was just trying to be excessive in his comments to make them more clear, and that is a right think to do.

You should concentrate more on what he really wanted to mean, your focus of analyzes in his comment is in the wrong direction.

If you're going to argue with someone intelligently, use proper grammar.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

You are not trying to be cosntructive in your conversations.
Follow your own advice and be better than him, let some thinks just pass and dont give extreme negative opinions about someones elses comment
By overcritisizing him too hard you might make some mistakes in your arguments and e expose them to contraarguments.

P.S. And I was given an advice from my philosophy professor that extreme words should never be replied back with other extreme words, otherwise, its dead end.

Conversations implies more than one, so point out another. I know I'm not trying to be constructive, because this isn't criticism of cause for feedback. Rather, my reply was a response to his post. Although, I did provide some constructive feedback to the effect that his opinion would be better received and make more sense if he didn't use extreme words. For instance, if he merely stated that "while there have undoubtedly been some great films and books created in the past 30 years, there is a greater level of mediocrity and low quality prevalent in both the literary and cinematic worlds, due to the greater number of books and movies being produced each year. the greater level of production (as surfdude points out) has led to a degree of laziness, knowing that something that is merely a niche will be successful (i.e. Dan Brown spin offs, or movie sequels). As a result, there are less truly great books and movies that have come out in the past 30 years, although time will tell."

That, I suspect, is what he truly meant (or so I hope).

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by Bateman,Patrick

If you're going to argue with someone intelligently, use proper grammar.

Why do you hate so much if someone doesnt know english quite as well as you.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Why do you hate so much if someone doesnt know english quite as well as you.

Yeah, that wasn't necessary at all.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Conversations implies more than one, so point out another. I know I'm not trying to be constructive, because this isn't criticism of cause for feedback. Rather, my reply was a response to his post. Although, I did provide some constructive feedback to the effect that his opinion would be better received and make more sense if he didn't use extreme words. For instance, if he merely stated that "while there have undoubtedly been some great films and books created in the past 30 years, there is a greater level of mediocrity and low quality prevalent in both the literary and cinematic worlds, due to the greater number of books and movies being produced each year. the greater level of production (as surfdude points out) has led to a degree of laziness, knowing that something that is merely a niche will be successful (i.e. Dan Brown spin offs, or movie sequels). As a result, there are less truly great books and movies that have come out in the past 30 years, although time will tell."

That, I suspect, is what he truly meant (or so I hope).

What extreme words?
No extreme words, extreme approch to conversation style. Concentarting on arguing one small part of his very big comment rather than trying to understand the big picture is extreme approach to communication for me.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Conversations implies more than one, so point out another. I know I'm not trying to be constructive, because this isn't criticism of cause for feedback. Rather, my reply was a response to his post. Although, I did provide some constructive feedback to the effect that his opinion would be better received and make more sense if he didn't use extreme words. For instance, if he merely stated that "while there have undoubtedly been some great films and books created in the past 30 years, there is a greater level of mediocrity and low quality prevalent in both the literary and cinematic worlds, due to the greater number of books and movies being produced each year. the greater level of production (as surfdude points out) has led to a degree of laziness, knowing that something that is merely a niche will be successful (i.e. Dan Brown spin offs, or movie sequels). As a result, there are less truly great books and movies that have come out in the past 30 years, although time will tell."

That, I suspect, is what he truly meant (or so I hope).

Words definitely do matter. I like your point about "time will tell." Perhaps we're all wrong and Forrest Gump will be #1 on the AFI top 100 in 2050

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

What extreme words?
No extreme words, extreme approch to conversation style. Concentarting on arguing one small part of his very big comment rather than trying to understand the big picture is extreme approach to communication for me.

He made his point clear in his opening three statements and did not negate them in the ensuing paragraphs, so I don't see how I misunderstood it at all. Admittedly, I lacked tact in my reply but that's because I considered it to be just so outlandish and borderline offensive (not to me, but to writers and filmmakers who have made indisputably great and important works in the past 30 years). So, I wasn't arguing a small part when it was his entire point.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

What extreme words?
No extreme words, extreme approch to conversation style. Concentarting on arguing one small part of his very big comment rather than trying to understand the big picture is extreme approach to communication for me.

I think he means "Almost every..."

It doesn't leave much wiggle room. It pretty much means 99% or so. So, it would probably mean that at least one of Schindler's List, Dances with Wolves, Shawshank Redemption, and Forrest Gump shouldn't have been made, which is clearly bogus IMO.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Words definitely do matter. I like your point about "time will tell." Perhaps we're all wrong and Forrest Gump will be #1 on the AFI top 100 in 2050

I consciously try to choose the correct word because I've always had a problem making sure I'm using the right word at the right time. A single word can change the entire meaning of something.

As for "time will tell," I'm very interested to see where some films will be ranked. I'm even more interested to see what films that received lukewarm reviews (maybe the Fountain?) will be considered classics in the future, like Blade Runner.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I think he means "Almost every..."

It doesn't leave much wiggle room. It pretty much means 99% or so. So, it would probably mean that at least one of Schindler's List, Dances with Wolves, Shawshank Redemption, and Forrest Gump shouldn't have been made, which is clearly bogus IMO.

Speaking of Dances with Wolves, you and Rich are really making me jealous

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

He made his point clear in his opening three statements and did not negate them in the ensuing paragraphs, so I don't see how I misunderstood it at all. Admittedly, I lacked tact in my reply but that's because I considered it to be just so outlandish and borderline offensive (not to me, but to writers and filmmakers who have made indisputably great and important works in the past 30 years). So, I wasn't arguing a small part when it was his entire point.

If someone is too outlandish, try being very selective in your words and not aggressive in return, otherwise you wont come to any common ground.
Take the initiative as the startegic thinker, let him be unselective in his words, while yourselv being selective and playing the game the way he likes. Manipulate him, rather than contradict him, and he will understand your point.

As to when you said that I was generally against all his comment, than in that case II guess we just have different opinions on that count.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

If someone is too outlandish, try being very selective in your words and not aggressive in return, otherwise you wont come to any common ground.
Take the initiative as the startegic thinker, let him be unselective in his words, while yourselv being selective and playing the game the way he likes. Manipulate him, rather than contradict him, and he will understand your point.

As to when you said that I was generally against all his comment, than in that case II guess we just have different opinions on that count.

haha okay Sun Tzu

[Show spoiler]

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I consciously try to choose the correct word because I've always had a problem making sure I'm using the right word at the right time. A single word can change the entire meaning of something.

As for "time will tell," I'm very interested to see where some films will be ranked. I'm even more interested to see what films that received lukewarm reviews (maybe the Fountain?) will be considered classics in the future, like Blade Runner.

Yeah, Aranofsky's films, especially The Fountain, may be received like Kubrick's films - initially torn apart and then gradually recognized as masterpieces. It seems to take some time for films like these, which are so far ahead of their curve. I really do hope that the Fountain gets its just desserts. You provided great insights on that one. Did you finish your paper/book?

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

haha okay Sun Tzu

[Show spoiler]

haha, that was funny.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Speaking of Dances with Wolves, you and Rich are really making me jealous

Well Rich is making me jealous! 4 hr director cut?? I only have the wussy 184 minute theatrical cut! But seriously, I think I'm fine with it. Have you seen the DC? Is it worth it? The PQ is stellar, and I think I only paid $14 shipped from Amazon UK. Are you waiting for US release?

[rkolinski]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Speaking of Dances with Wolves, you and Rich are really making me jealous

I hope so! I've also been following this ARGUMENT which has been taking place on this thread. Being much older than most of you, I was going to say be nice children. However, I would only be pulling your collective legs! This argument (intentionally lower case this time) is really good in my opinion. I think making all encompassing statements, even those which only leave a small percentage of wiggle room, just shouldn't be allowed to slide. Sadly, I think the original poster of this opinion is asleep.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Yeah, Aranofsky's films, especially The Fountain, may be received like Kubrick's films - initially torn apart and then gradually recognized as masterpieces. It seems to take some time for films like these, which are so far ahead of their curve. I really do hope that the Fountain gets its just desserts. You provided great insights on that one. Did you finish your paper/book?

I actually think that'd be a good idea for a thread--maybe I'll start it tomorrow (movies you think will be viewed as classics in 20 years). I think there'll be some interesting selections, although prob some of those damn Fincher movies too

Nope, haven't finished. I'm still looking for more material to go on. The original theme was idealism in nature, but I really want to try to expand it somehow to get Triangle in there. Maybe take a broad route, such as symbolism in film. And, of course, Club Loop will get it's due credit on the flyleaf, albeit in a The Lives of Others sort of way

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Well Rich is making me jealous! 4 hr director cut?? I only have the wussy 184 minute theatrical cut! But seriously, I think I'm fine with it. Have you seen the DC? Is it worth it? The PQ is stellar, and I think I only paid $14 shipped from Amazon UK. Are you waiting for US release?

Sorry to go off topic for a sec guys...

I haven't seen it on blu and I haven't seen the extended version. I clicked on the UK version you have and saw it was almost 4 hours...is that incorrect then? I know Rich has the German version...