| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Salopian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 04/30/2009 : 01:13:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
A number of reasons:
1) I enjoy the experience of watching a movie, even if I don't like the movie. Me and my friends frequently hold Bad Movie Weekends where we all get drunk and watch awful movies. (Last weekend's was Lost in Space.)
2) Your sense of perspective gets skewed if you only watch good movies.
3) Until last December, I was the film reviewer for my local paper, so I was obligated to go see one movie every week.
4) You don't know if it's good or bad until you watch it.
5) Even bad movies can be interesting and worth considering.
Journey to the Center to the Earth I watched because I was visiting a friend and he had to take his 12-year-old brother to a movie. The 12-year-old didn't like it either.
(1) is sort of a good reason, but aren't you more talking about films you love to hate, but that you still kind of enjoy? Would this really apply to all the films you state as being worthless?
(2) is also sort of true, but only if you ignore the existence of all the films you don't see. I only watch a small amount of the television available, but I don't imagine that it equates to the average quality broadcast.
(3) is a good reason if you were limited by the paper in your choices or lived somewhere with only a small cinema. Fairly good films come out every week.
(4) is only true in principle, but I am talking about films that before I see them I feel sure you will dislike them, so I doubt that you would have less evidence. I've just noticed that I had even already made the same point in this thread!
(5) is a contradiction: if it's interesting, it's not really that bad -- bear in mind that we are talking about films you consider worthless.
The last reason is the best one. 
I like seeing virtually all releases for reasons similar to the ones you've given -- I'd miss some gems if I just went by the marketing/reviews, I like to be familiar with the overall output of the industry and I enjoy almost every film more than not having seen it. It's just that the latter in particular doesn't seem to apply to you -- there are many films that you don't enjoy at all and they are rarely surprising instances. Being unchoosy suits me but not you. |
 |
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 01:14:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Why do you watch so many films that are obviously the sort of thing you would dislike? It is extremely bizarre.
There's a perfectly good reason that explains why anyone watched a particular film they would ultimately not remember fondly: because they did not know how they would feel about the film until after they watched it. Nothing "bizarre" there.
Again, we're talking about cases where he can judge very well that he will not like them. |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 05:02:22
|
And, again, one cannot know how one ultimately will react to a film until one has seen the damned thing. Since even drivel can contain redemptive moments, there is nothing bizarre in being open- minded enough to see for one's self.
For shame Sal: you are openly advocating close-mindedness in film! "You are bizarre if you watch a film that you are pretty sure you probably won't think highly about."  Well, I AM bizarre and I don't like my ranks being thrown open so casually! It takes some really special shit to be bizarre, and unless you qualify, I invite you to stop bestowing that sacred badge so freely upon people who have perfectly sane reasons to watch even bad cinema! That's pretty damned common.
(Which reminds me of an event of yore. I was dating this sexy young lass from Phoenix (a perfectluy unimportant detail in this tale), with whom I was was invited to a screening of some unidentified film at a studio. We were to be paid $20 each for watching and giving our opinions. The film was beyond bad. It was insipid, asinine, and painful to watch. Many people simply walked out before it was over -- forfeiting pay; but, goddamnit, I was going to get my $20 bucks because somebody had to pay for this! It was fucking awful. One of the screeners confided to me that the film was the project of a studio head's son and that they had hoped to get exactly the reaction they were receiving so they could discourage this lad from trying to make another film. I wish I could remember his name, because I have a sneaking suspicion that the ploy did not work. Oh well: I made $20 dollars.  ) |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 06:55:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
(Which reminds me of an event of yore. I was dating this sexy young lass from Phoenix (a perfectluy unimportant detail in this tale), with whom I was was invited to a screening of some unidentified film at a studio. We were to be paid $20 each for watching and giving our opinions. The film was beyond bad. It was insipid, asinine, and painful to watch. Many people simply walked out before it was over -- forfeiting pay; but, goddamnit, I was going to get my $20 bucks because somebody had to pay for this! It was fucking awful. One of the screeners confided to me that the film was the project of a studio head's son and that they had hoped to get exactly the reaction they were receiving so they could discourage this lad from trying to make another film. I wish I could remember his name, because I have a sneaking suspicion that the ploy did not work. Oh well: I made $20 dollars. )
You mean... Judd Aptow is the bastard son of some studio head?
(I knew it, I just knew it!)
|
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/03/2009 : 13:20:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Then you get something like GODS AND MONSTERS ....
I just saw this last night. Ian McKellen and Lynn Redgrave were rivetingly good. I will begrudge Benigni his Oscar over Ian that year, but barely (and I mean barely; quick: read on before I reconsider that resignation!), though Dame Judy might agree to wrap hers carefully and send it to Ms. Redgrave with a note: "I thank the Academy for the nod toward my own talent, but I believe this is yours." |
Edited by - MguyX on 05/04/2009 15:54:29 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/03/2009 : 17:07:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
And, again, one cannot know how one ultimately will react to a film until one has seen the damned thing. Since even drivel can contain redemptive moments, there is nothing bizarre in being open- minded enough to see for one's self.
For shame Sal: you are openly advocating close-mindedness in film! "You are bizarre if you watch a film that you are pretty sure you probably won't think highly about."
No, you're not seeing the distinction I am making. There are films that one thinks one will not enjoy, and then there are films that it is certain one will not enjoy. Now, you may not agree that it is possible that any films can ever be in the latter category, but that is a different issue. All I am saying is that I think some films are in that category for Mr.B.I. No films are in that category for me and probably not for you. I have at no point said that people should not watch films that they think they will not like. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/03/2009 : 21:31:17
|
Well, you never know. I thought there was no way in hell I'd like anything about the Alvin and the Chipmunks movie, and though it was not GOOD per se, it was certainly a lot better than I expected.
I'm also of the opinion that even the most worthless piece of art offers something interesting. Journey to the Center of the Earth, for example, offers me the opportunity to think about what does and doesn't work with 3-D as a medium, what does and doesn't work about Brendan Fraser as an actor or as a persona, what subtext might have been excised from the Verne original, and so on. One of the best piece of criticism I've ever read is a very deep analysis of "Garfield: The Movie," which managed to find parallels between it and American Splendor and the documentary Touching the Void. And this isn't some wacko looking for subtext which aren't there; the reviewer hated Garfield in pretty much all the same ways everyone else did, he just took it deeper. |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 04:20:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
And, again, one cannot know how one ultimately will react to a film until one has seen the damned thing. Since even drivel can contain redemptive moments, there is nothing bizarre in being open- minded enough to see for one's self.
For shame Sal: you are openly advocating close-mindedness in film! "You are bizarre if you watch a film that you are pretty sure you probably won't think highly about."
No, you're not seeing the distinction I am making. There are films that one thinks one will not enjoy, and then there are films that it is certain one will not enjoy. Now, you may not agree that it is possible that any films can ever be in the latter category, but that is a different issue. All I am saying is that I think some films are in that category for Mr.B.I. No films are in that category for me and probably not for you. I have at no point said that people should not watch films that they think they will not like.
Four days passed, the thread was pretty much getting hijacked into a different direction, and you still had to bring this up?
First of all: nothing is certain before it happens. In all probability the sun will rise tomorrow, but even this is not certain.*
The argumentative error in your logic (on many occasions, I might add) is your reliance on purported absolutes, which by their very nature lack definition other than being precisely what we cannot perceive but suppose to exist. You assume there is a certainty when there is not. There cannot be: there can be only a relative probability, whether high or low. Your argument, which you would have done well to have let die, relies on false authority. The fact that you consider something certain makes it no more so for anyone else in the world.
When I was a writing tutor oh so many years ago, I would make my students take out all absolute adverbs from their essays (e.g., obviously, definitely, certainly) for this very reason: they create false authority that actually reveals holes in the supposed logic underlying an assertion. What Council of Elders declared anything so obvious, definite or certain? If they did, you would do well to cite them as authority so that others can determine whether they based their opinion on anything logical or reasonable as well.
There is no certainty that any film has no reedeming value. An apt example, though fictional, is "Springtime For Hitler." Bialistock and Bloom believe they have discovered the unredeemable musical, only to find that its production creates a masterpiece. But they were certain it would flop!
M.B.I. needs no defense from me; he has well demonstrated the point that entertainment and knowledge may be gleaned even against the odds. But, again, all we have are odds, and they are never 100% - only likely or unlikely. My point, however, was two-fold: (1) you are wrong to insult another (i.e., calling someone "bizarre") for reasonably having an open mind (as I recall, M.B.I. did not say anything untoward regarding you, so you had no cause to be unkind as to him), and (2) you are wrong to assume that another cannot remain open-minded even in the face of expressed preferences to the contrary. Thought, and the mutability of opinion are hallmarks of the human mind. So be open, and be kind. 
*Only because you will likely argue the point: the sun does not rise. Rather, the earth revolves and portions of it become exposed to the sun's light. It is entirely possible that a huge object in space could hurtle toward the earth and destroy it any second now; thus, no revolving and no "rising" tomorrow. |
Edited by - MguyX on 05/04/2009 05:40:39 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 09:29:30
|
Haven't read your post yet, MguyX. I expect I'll get around to it one day.
Great news, Mr.M.B.! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Journey to the Center of the Earth
