Comments by "TheNabOwnzz" (@TheNabOwnzz) on "Top 20 Greatest Movies Of All Time" video.
-
36
-
17
-
9
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
Moh Asani It is indeed top tier, there is not a weak performance in the bunch. Why is it not? And i have seen plenty of movies with good acting. I explicitly said that i did not count Gimli among those with wide arcs. Even so, there's still around 10 characters who do have them. Gimli might indeed be joking around often times, but they are never cringy, especially not as cringy as marvel. Faramir and Eowyn? Well let us see... Faramir, the younger brother perpetually living in the shadow of the first, never knowing of love by his father. He is good hearted by nature, but corrupted because of his lovelessness in enslaving Frodo & Sam by the seduction of the ring. Nevertheless his good nature eventually overcomes his outer corruption when seeing Frodo almost willingly give up the ring to a Nazgul, and he self sacrifices his honour and his little acclaim he had left of his father by this selfless act. Drained of all that could give him the will to live, he sacrifices himself and almost dies. Eowyn, grown up in war torn lands with parents brutally murdered before her eyes, grows up with a perpetual sense of sadness and remorse. She becomes obsessed with the gaining of valor, like the men, and disdains such womanly activities such as caring for the old and sick during sieges. She thus disguises herself and fights among them, only to be wounded by the witch king and confronted by the futility of her actions, echoing Aragorn's earlier words that there 'will come a time when there will be valor without renown'. This valor she gives up when she meets Faramir, and Faramir finds the sole reason to live once again. So you see, both arcs effortlessly compliment each other, and are indubitably the result of a thorough amount of thought.
Aragorn and Frodo average? Let us see... Aragorn, heir to Isildur and thus heir to the throne of Gondor grows up in fear of what happened to Isildur. He grows up in fear of responsibility, essentially, and thus in the beginning we see him as a self proclaimed exile, a ranger of the north. He fears and shirks his responsibilities due to the tragedies of his ancestor. Throughout the trilogy, he becomes more and more immersed in the role he was born to be, to wit, becoming the king of Gondor. Aragorn is also, obviously, good natured, and by witnessing Sauron's increased power and the consequences of his wrath upon all of Middle Earth, he slowly becomes compelled to act, and slowly embraces his responsibility, and rids himself of his past fear. Frodo? The jovial and ignorant Hobbit of the shire... knowing nothing of the world outside and of good and evil before the start. Circumstances force him into action. He becomes the reluctant bearer of destiny without having asked for such a thing, and gradually he realizes that only he can possibly bring the ring into mordor, after witnessing the animosity of the council of Elrond. He turns from simple, ignorant and kind-hearted into an icon of despair and yet hope, in a duplicitious amalgamation of qualities. Having done his task he returns to the Shire, but his mental and physical wounds prove to be too much for him to bear. As he poignantly states; 'How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on when in your heart you begin to understand there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend... some hurts that go too deep... that have taken hold.' indeed Frodo could not return to the carefree life of the Shire after the evil and misery he has witnessed, and he has therefore sacrificed himself for the greater good, this meek Hobbit of the shire. This is just a brief summary about these obviously in-depth characters, but you get the point that they cannot be shallow.
What's bad about the moments when they apparently died? It heightens the risk factor in the movie. The world is at stake. Everybody can die. Gandalf actually did die, by the way. He was just resurrected. Now you're suddenly turning the rushing and dragging around, lmao. You said the opposite before this. Sure you know what you're talking about? We have established the obvious substantial quality of LOTR, so saying it is only technically great makes no sense. And wow, Lawrence of Arabia & Barry Lyndon look even better so LOTR cannot be great, right? First off i mean you're picking the best of the best, and LOTR is still substantially better than both of those, even if they have the visual edge. 2001, however, is definitely not visually better. HAL pushing that friend of Dave away looks silly as shit, and the space scenes are kinda wooden in movement. Also, you whined about LOTR's characters, but then you name 2001 as a masterpiece? Oh, the irony...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@asinfinitascoisas5030 Boyo, again, the villains aren't supposed to be developed character. They are just there to create a setting for the impeccably developed protagonists. It's an irrelevant point. Perhaps if the villain had a lot of screentime, you would have a point, but they do not, unless you count Gollum, as i said, who is indeed a great character. What's poorly made about orcs? This is like complaining that sieges in war films have many people in it that are not developed, lmao. How is the fellowship ''not good''? It is the greatest in all of cinema, boyo. ''Acting very stupid''... again, such a ridiculous remark... how? The acting is very good by pretty much everyone in the cast. ''Can't get you to care about those characters'' is your most ridiculous complaint of all. This is a purely baseless subjective fancy of yours. If there were characters to care about in cinema, it would be those of LOTR, namely Frodo & Sam. Talk about trivial things? What's this supposed to mean? I guess you missed Sam's monologue about the stories that really mattered in TTT, and his reminiscences of the Shire in RotK. No weight to the story? These moments lead one to surmise the obvious fact that these two have been through a torturous journey full of famine and hopelessness, in a world that blatantly shows the decrepit evil in comparison to the sheltered Shire life they led. Yeah, the ring is powerful in its seduction, therefore people are seduced.... what's bad about that, lmao? That's like saying it's predictable people get killed in the Godfather because it's about the mob. Going crazy only character development? Let us ignore the utter transformation of Frodo, Sam, Pippin & Merry in their journey, Aragorn's return from selfish exile to selfless responsibility, Boromir's sin covered quickly by his final redemption, Faramir's gradual progression to acceptance (That also goes for Eowyn) etc etc. I mean, it's a fact that they're pretty well developed.
Atmosphere not very sinister? Again you're just twisting the facts here. There is a dark, melancholy musical score in many scenes, death is shown as a serious thing by usage of slow motion and the accompanying said melodramatic score, Nazgul scenes, or the Khazad Dum sequence in particular, are quite obvious examples of that. Editing horrible? Again this just seems like a flim-flam argument, you just don't like it so you pull baseless criticisms out of your sleeves, when in reality you really are not making any sense. The visuals at night are actually even better than at night, nor is it ever too dark, boyo lmao. The best shot in the trilogy is that of a Nazgul, in Fellowship, on a hill, with the moonlight lighting the background, in the dark. Therefore, one cannot deny the superior characters, superior (both day and night) cinematography and sets, and the genuine seriousness of its subject matter.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@asinfinitascoisas5030 The point isn't the villains, boyo. The point is the common theme of fellowship in adverse conditions, largely caused by the seductive power of the ring. Unless you mean Gollum, but that's an objectively great character. The orcs aren't supposed to be proper characters, boyo, lmao. You seem to miss the point. Lmao, how is the atmosphere not sinister? Take any scene with Nazguls in Fellowship. Incredibly ominous music, impeccable dark lighting (primarily that gorgeous appearance in weathertop out of the darkness), hopelessness and despair apparent in the inflicted wound, etc. Not to mention the fact that deaths are accompanied by the most melancholic parts of the score, slow motion, and in other words just general seriousness, that there is really little doubt that LOTR is indeed sinister, serious & mature, but it seems you have some sort of bias against this obvious fact.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Moh Asani 2001 is nowhere near the best movie ever made. For one, it has extremely shallow characters. Transformers is also not meant to be taken as a character study, it was made as brainless entertainment and succeeds fully on this count. Therefore, by your logic, Transformers is eligible for a spot of the best movies of all time. No, boyo, greatness is absolute. It doesn't matter what 2001 tried to do. Point is, it has no characters. It's not really that deep either, and what's thought provoking about it? Only the ending could be considered as such, but that's about it. And yeah, Lyndon has better cinematography than LOTR. That's also where the positives on Lyndon's side stop. Undoubtedly Barry is a great character, but LOTR has a dozen of his level, lmao. It's no contest.
How does what i said not entail that they are complex? All of the characters i've named had those regrets, dreams, fears, hopes and losses that make them the epitome of a three dimensional character. And again, Michael & Travis are undoubtedly also good characters, but they just have one of them. LOTR has an elaborate backstory for each of the ones i named, gives them definite characteristics, fears, merits, etc. Not to mention the fact that they are also superbly intertwined into eachother's arc, namely those of Faramir & Eowyn and Merry & Pippin. Plenty of people died, boyo. Haldir, Boromir, Theoden etc not to mention numerous extra's and those who survive experiencing constant peril. That the world is at stake and that its risk is felt does not imply that everyone should die. Gandalf's death was not meaningless since he could not have awakened Theoden in his grey form, lmao. How is it meaningless? He turns into a different version of himself. And again, the stakes part we have established. There are plenty of deaths among main characters, even more among extra's, and the sense of impending shadow and darkness is ever prevalent. The only counterargument you could give is Gimli's joking around, but that's about it. Everything else lends to it an air of seriousness to the situation.
1
-
Moh Asani It seems all you're doing is flatout denying my points without addressing them. You seem to be in denial of the facts. You are also purposely oversimplifying everything to the point where it becomes ludicrous, and such oversimplifications are applicable to every movie if one so wishes. I have already said why Faramir, Eowyn, Frodo & Aragorn have arcs. You just say ''NUUUOOOO THEY DONT!!!!'' and that's it. This is because you cannot deny that they do have one. I have already explained why. Just admit that you were wrong already, this is embarrassing. On the point of the Godfather though, nobody in the entire movie except Michael changes in any way there. Tom, Sonny & Connie on the level of LOTR characters...? Don't make me laugh. And Vito is good but again he does not change, he is not a very complex character. The same could be said of Fredo, though you could argue he changes in the way he wants prominence in the family, but such a matter pales in comparison to the elaborate arcs of LOTR i have just proclaimed.
Thus, we must come to the inexorable deduction that you haven't got a leg to stand on. All of your argumentation consists of denial with nothing to back it up, thinking your oversimplifying is sufficient to debunk anything i say. You have also conveniently failed to give any real arguments to back up your case, except perhaps the 2001 part, but all you're doing with that is dishing out circumstantial ''interpretations'' which could by no means have been in Kubrick's mind while making it. Just because it's vague doesn't mean it's deep. Nietzsche? Don't make me laugh. You even read? I doubt it. Also 2001 and writing...? What writing? It barely has a screenplay. And i don't get this whining of yours about the apparent deaths. What actually is so bad about it? I already explained why Gandalf's death is not meaningless but necessary. He could never have gotten Theoden out of Saruman's grasp as the white. You are purposely ignoring the validity of my points, lmao. It is clear by this point that you are lost.
1
-
Moh Asani If i am overanalyzing them, kindly bring up which parts are up for interpretation and cannot be defined factually, because overanalyzing means that i am trying to find something that is not there. The arguments i gave about Aragorn, Frodo, Faramir & Eowyn are factual. They have these backgrounds and they have these motivations. It is not up for debate. So how am i overanalyzing them? Moreover, you're embarrassingly contradicting yourself. First you make believe that what i explained is "amateur writing" and superficial development, now you're saying that i overanalyzed it, which would imply that i have actually explained it in a way that has some depth. Even too much, according to you. Your blatant hypocrisy is becoming quite laughable. You have yet to give a single proper argument to dispute my claim. What do the LOTR characters lack? What i described entails every merit a character should have. Do not give in to stubborn pride, boyo. It really doesn't matter if you keep acting like the big boy by making me out for a troll despite giving proper arguments, we both know you have been defeated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dataexpunged69 Alas, 'tis not any matter of intellect which so aggrieves me. It is the preposterous modernity of that text, which in turn renders is grossly obnoxious. Seriously, re-read, and uncover the axiomatic ugliness of it. Naming elongated scientific words does not render you intelligent, boyo; rather, it deadens the senses from all wisdom, and it is an arrant retrograde to all intelligence. Rather, one must revert to archaic exclamations in order to exude that impression of intellectual superiority, which you so vainly believe yourself to possess. Also, can you send one of those ''novels'' you have written? I am mightily anxious to behold this language of Hades!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulopinto5806 I speak as is habitual to me; i do not care to impress beings whom i considered some way inferior to me. Also, what "15th century words"? You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
1. You rebuked me for the monotony of my list; that is the same as proclaiming diversity higher than quality. This is, of course a ridiculously fallacious view of things. It is partly why your list is so bad, also. Your obsession with representing different countries has infected your judgement, boyo.
2. Again, this is a futile ad hominem. The point is relevant; how? How is a personal circumstance relevant to the argument that has nothing to do with it? That is, again, an ad hominem. Look it up, seriously. If you don't understand me that's your misfortune, boyo. It's quite easy to understand for anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.
3. That's the point, boyo. This means you've been here a long time already, which makes it a high probability that you are indeed a troll. Probably Lucas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewhruiz Loving marvel means sinning, it doesn't matter what you know. Might actually try reading the Bible sometimes, boyo, to wit;
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."
- 1 John 15:16
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bo8fett2 First of all, boyo, my opinion is entirely objective. It is quite ironic that you revert to this argument when you advocate abstruse pieces of nonsense that cannot possibly merit anything concrete outside the human mind, thus rendering them beyond the sphere of objective judgement. If anything, it is your view that is most questionable, because this already makes it evident that you do not know what value is. "Cinephiles", as you call them, are pretentious overthinkers who mistake the trees for the forest, and apply superlativez belonging rather to more complex forms of storytelling, like literature, to something as simplistic as film. Commercialized casuals, if you refer to marvel lovers or something, are just as much nonsense. One needs to be in betwixt these two nonsensical extremes. But in any case, a list like this should be based on merit and not nonsensical diversity. Gender of a director is irrelevant and so is the country. Still males and America is the best by far.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bo8fett2 We're not speaking of opinions, boyo. The fact that movies are objective is already confirmed by the difference between the Godfather and the Room. Nobody in their sane mind could proclaim that that difference is not objective. I know perfectly well what defines a radical progressive, and you are one. A boyo who seriously believes art is subjective cannot be anything but that. It's utterly contradictory and nonsensical too, since again, art is an utterly meaningless word if it's all subjective. But it's always people who like the rather bad things that say this, because they're ashamed that people will laugh at their views. Fact is, boyo, your views are factually erroneous, and nothing you say will change that. The fact that you think you know something because you went to a progressive film school confirms this too; it's like someone going to a post modernist art class (who all embody this futile, nonsensical view) and say they know something about art. You're deluded, boyo. Your views do not make any logical sense whatsoever. Oh, and funny you use post modern nothing words like "sexist" too, lmao, but what else to expect from one so devoid of intellect?
1
-
@bo8fett2 You don't really understand, boyo. I said film was objective, i did not say everyone judges objectively; but that's irrelevant, since one has a choice to look at it without being objective. That in no way invalidates the axiomatic existence of it. Your example of flashbacks also makes it quite clear you do not understand me. That a character sees something subjectively has little to do with the quality of the film being subjective, especially since everyone in the audience sees the same thing. That's another thing; it's the same for everyone, and therefore it cannot possibly be subjective. And yes, in no way can you state that the quality gap between the Room and the Godfather is a matter of opinion. That's nonsense and you know it well. Again, schools embody a certain post modernist philosophy that invariably thrive on the erroneous assumption that all is subjective (the reason for that is because they try desperately to allow talentless hacks to thrive, as nonsense can easily be seen as genius with this idiotic view). Interpretation is created by something in the movie; it therefore must apparently have value otherwise nothing could be interpreted. This too, is undeniably objective. And you, a conservative? What? You're a funny guy, boyo. And i'm Julius Caesar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@geonthanskyreonnie1338 I made it very simple for you, boyo. I said a meager three words which were quite evident in their meaning. You nevertheless fail to recognize the meaning of it due to your quite palpable cognitive dissonance, which alone proclaims that you are indeed not as intelligent as me. But, since i need to spoon-feed you, boyo, i shall explain the matter. I asked you quite simply to give me an accurate substantive argument based on rational, empirical, objective reasoning, described in detail and in generally accurate and civilized English, excluding portions of prejudice and based solely on verifiable historical facts about which a general consensus is maintained in intellectual circles and which even among the most passionate opposition leaders is irrefutably recognized. Therefore, SPEAK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Moh Asani Boromir DOES have an arc, boyo, that cannot be denied. He's a honourable warrior obsessed with protecting his kingdom by all costs, making him easily susceptible to the seduction of the ring, corrupting him and inducing him for a final act of redemption by saving Merry & Pippin, so as to depart in honour despite his misgivings. There is indeed moral fluctuation present, and thus an arc. Keep in mind this is merely a brief summary of the man. I never overanalyzed anything, i actually kept it all very brief and none of my information can be refuted becsuse it was as i said. Yeah, arcs are about how they change during the journey... this i seriously already explained. All except Gimli & Legolas of the Fellowship significantly change, ESPECIALLY the hobbits, and particularly Frodo, of course, because his burden was biggest. That's the point of the final half hour... i explained that previously. The war changed him beyond repair. Thus all these characters are transformed by the war and by their fellowship, and in fact Legolas & Gimli also kind of fit in this, as they are nearly attacking each other at the council and ready to die for one another at the end. Therefore, i repeat. That LOTR characters have significant arcs cannot possibly be denied. It is reality. Calling LOTR "only visuals" is akin to calling the Godfather "only acting." (Yes, i stole that last quote from Larry, but it fits.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Moh Asani I already proved to you that LOTR is pretty much the only movie with a dozen fully developed arcs... and this is yet to be disputed, boyo, because it cannot be disputed. Also, it's quite faithful to the novel, which is very well written, naturally, therefore the movie, also naturally, inherits this regard. To compare the world class writing of LOTR to say, something like Persona, is just a joke. The former is lightyears superior.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1