Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Razzie Winning Movies We Secretly Love" video.
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Blackfyre
Ivan Drago was like a comic book villain; I mean come on, Rocky would have died from brain damage after just one hit from him, and he had pretty cartoonish scowls. Mickey's death was much more sentimental because he and Rocky were mentor and student, and had a stronger bond, and because heart attack is such a cruel way to die from. This also makes Rocky's breakdown and lack of motivation more realistic and understandable (not to mention that Rocky actually looked sad over his death), and Rocky even has more development by initially falling into the "cocky champion" trap, but loses to Clubber Lang as a result just like Apollo eventually lost to Rocky. However, the former foes turn into allies and take Rocky's skills to a new level.
Another big flaw Rocky IV has is that virtually none of the characters serve any real purpose at all; you can replace Rocky with any other protagonist, as well as replacing Apollo and the villains, and throw out Adrian and Paulie and it wouldn't make a difference.
Of course, you don't care about all of this; all you care about is music and action. You're the definition of what is wrong with modern moviegoers. Can't imagine that you watch art movies for example
1
-
William Blackfyre
Somebody's a little emotional, and you're wrong about me being a film student, so it looks like you like to make assumptions as well, you hypocrite. What made Rocky so great in the first place was giving the audience a real human being with real human conflicts, and a motivational core that didn’t just apply to getting buff and becoming a champ, but achieving your dream as well, while Rocky 2 and 3 showed the consequences of fame and riches, and the latter gave us Rocky losing his confidence for the first time in his life, but building it up again and improving his skills with the help from his former rival. And of course, Rocky Balboa was the life when you're close to getting retired and only got your memories and heart left. All of those Rocky movies showed us a real human being with real conflicts, not a bland generic boxer who gets overshadowed by action sequences and a soundtrack. There are movies where action and soundtrack are enough and where it works, but Rocky is not the right franchise for you if that's what you're looking for.
"Just, wow, what a pretentious prick". Yeah, real mature, I must say, and you just added another fallacy in your flawed judgment. It's getting old and laughable too.
1
-
William Blackfyre
You seem to be very upset that I don't like Rocky IV as much as you do, and yes, it's my opinion; movie reviews are not fact-based, but the general reception of the franchise and what people want from a sports drama conclude that Rocky IV is one of the weaker movies. It's a normative standard. And yes, he's definitely a super boxer if he can defeat Drago, but why is it so implausible that he beat Creed and Lang? Much of the point of the 1st movie was that Rocky had potentials, but never knew about it, and he proved himself worthy by surviving against Creed, but it would be too unrealistic that he actually won, so he lost instead, but proved to be a contender. However, the sequel took his skills to the next level and gave him enough to actually become a champ, therefore developing his character. The sequel (in addition of showing that he gets too comfortable with his money) also gave us more insight in how he's literally a nobody without boxing and raises question on how he's supposed to become a good father; it showed a different side of him and made him even more three-dimentional.
Clubber Lang was just the #1 contender and beat Rocky because the latter was both distraught from Mickey about to die and because his fame and glory made him cocky and not taking his training seriously. However, it at least gave us a conflict in the form of him losing his confidence and giving us the "Rival becomes ally" element, and it at least made Apollo have a real purpose in this film. Also, Mr. T wasn't really a celebrity when he starred in the film, so that argument is very weak.
I've given you plenty of analysis of the story and character development in Rocky II, III, and even Rocky Balboa (the latter having a final match that boxers have stated is one of the most realistic ones they have ever seen in a movie btw), but you dish them out in favor of your own opinion. "Proving that my opinion is right?" Ok, 1st of fall, opinions are not fact-based, so it's a weak argument to crave facts in a movie debate; this is not some political debate or discussion in science. 2nd of all, you have spent this entire conversation trying to prove why your opinion is right, and you even throw out direct insults and comments about me by calling me a pretentious prick multiple times. I don't even get insulted by them since it's a fallacy, and it's laughable because it's based on your impression of me as a person rather than looking at my arguments; my criticism of you was at least based on your flawed judgment and lack of proper skills in movie criticism, but now I can say that you're no better than me if you think I'm being pretentious. I didn't even used direct insults; I said that you don't seem to be someone who is looking for story and character development in the Rocky franchise, and there are too many people nowadays who don't care about it in general. I've even had debates with newspaper editors where I have criticized journalists' lack of art criticism skills, and what I got as a response is that modern audiences don't care about formal qualities in general anymore, so why should they?
Generally, I don't even understand your problem. Movie debates are like what we have been doing; exchanging opinions and arguing for them, and criticizing the opposition's lack of judgment if it's evident. However, calling someone a pretentious prick is both immature and irrelevant, and based on this entire conversation, I can conclude that movie debate isn't the best option for an activity for you
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
Did we even watch the same movie?
Firstly, Rocky only won against Apollo because the latter got tired and couldn't get up, and because of the former's endurance. If Apollo had gotten up, then he would have won instantly because of his points. Rocky's victory was basically a fluke, evidenced further in the third movie by Mickey directly stating that all of his opponents from that point on were handpicked, thus he wasn't even a true champion, which already makes Rocky doubt himself and question his title.
Secondly, Rocky's match against Thunderlips is a reflection of what Rocky had become; a cocky show-off who's basically had fixed matches (pro-wrestling is infamous for being staged, which is even lampshaded in the movie). It gets expanded further by Rocky just focusing on having a glamorous gym and satisfying the press, and it was even brought upon during the "The Eye of the Tiger" montage with all the tabloid headlines and his appearance at The Muppets, a massive stark contrast to Lang directly training. Rocky later having Apollo as his trainer brings him back to his roots, and it also shows that deep beneath Apollo's flashy and flamboyant exterior, he was actually a true fighter. He also took Rocky under his wings because he could see that Rocky had become just as cocky as he himself was during their first match, and he wanted to assure himself that he lost to a great fighter and not a cocky bastard who just got lucky.
Thirdly, Rocky's loss against Clubber Lang was due to him being distraught over Mickey's heart attack (combined with his doubts after finding out that all of his opponents were handpicked), and thus he underperformed. With his title and trainer/manager gone, he faces his great challenge at that point, which was immense doubt since he initially thought he could do anything after his first match against Apollo, but now he doesn't know if he was even a true champion, and he has also lost the person that made him a champion in the first place. It raises the stakes, and Apollo is the one who makes him get back on his feet again.
And finally, we don't know Clubber Lang's true strength. Sure he became the number one contender and defeated Rocky, but he only won because Rocky wasn't himself and underperformed due to emotional and psychological stress; he didn't beat Rocky at the latter's strongest. When they have their rematch, then Rocky has first of all gotten his confidence and focus back, and he had trained a lot with Apollo to change his tactics, so Clubber Lang could very easily have become just as cocky as Rocky and not done an effort to actually stay strong or become stronger
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
That punching machine goes out the window immediately because if he really was that strong, then Apollo and Rocky would die after just one punch, but they didn't, and brain damage would happen regardless if a boxer hit him in the head as much as Drago did. As for Lang's strength, then it's not an assumption since one can just compare the two fights and clearly see that he hasn't changed his tactics or strengths when Rocky clearly has as evidenced by his training with Creed or just when one looks at how he performs in the rematch. Dixon on the other hand has no previous battles of his own to be compared with.
Yes, you disregarded a bunch of points for why the third movie apparently is so bad because they were too subjective and biased (I mean, you even said "personally" and talked about wishing to be "inspired" as if that's supposed to be an indication of a film's aesthetic qualities. Now you even say "in my opinion" despite also trying to present your assessment as common sense, and you previously talked about your feelings, which again is a bias and something private), and that proves how bad your argumentation actually is; when leaving out everything that isn't personal biases or completely personal and private preferences, then there's nothing you're really bringing up that's supposed to justify your sweeping claim of it being a garbage movie, because those claims need more of a "disinterested" argument in order to be valid. Instead, you begin pigeonholing and cherry-picking Rocky apparently using a cheap tactic against someone we're not even supposed to be sympathetic towards, as if that's supposed to define the entire movie. One thing I've also noticed is that you're only talking about story rather than bringing up any of the aesthetic qualities. Hate to break it to you, but if story is the only thing you care about, then read a book rather than watching movies
As for the Gazzo conversation, then that's in the 2nd movie when he hadn't become the champ yet, hadn't become cocky, and hadn't returned to his roots, so that's irrelevant
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
I wouldn't watch it
Then you obviously haven't watched any movies by Warhol, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Fritz Lang, or even certain movies by Tarantino or Nolan. If you think meta-movies or experimental films aren't movies, then you're even more biased and narrow-minded that I thought
What is the connection between garbage movie and common sense
The fact that the general consensus has never been that Rocky III is garbage or even the worst Rocky film and yet you try to prove that it is. "Rocky V" is more hated than "Rocky III" if we look at the statistics.
You can look at this video's comments for example
That's the same as Sam Harris claiming that the philosophers he's supposedly talked to seems to agree with him, and that's apparently enough evidence. Who are all these people? What are their backgrounds?
All these people loved the movie
Except the people that nominated it for all its Razzies. It doesn't even have a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I guess I also don't exist since I hate the film, and yet you claim that "all these people" loved it. Not to mention that "The Last Jedi" was a way bigger success than any of the Rocky movies combined, and yet it's hard to find someone who's actually speaking positively about it. Box-office success doesn't automatically equal universal acclaim.
Also, for the last time: I'm not talking about objectivity, I'm talking about disinterested pleasure. What part of that don't you understand?!
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
Should I have some philosophy degree just to enjoy a movie
No, but if you read Kant, then I wouldn't have needed to explain the difference between disinterested pleasure and objectivity, and you would realize that you're mixing two completely different types of aesthetic judgments despite trying to deny it
I am not a movie critic or something
Looks like you're trying to act like one when one looks at your assessment.
You are not respecting my personal preferences
If you had made this conversation be entirely about personal preferences, then things would have been different, but instead you're trying to make this be about disinterested pleasure and common sense
You're just trying to act like I'm ignorant or stupid
When one looks at how you're debating and how little you know about aesthetic judgments, then it's proven conclusively that you're very inexperienced and incompetent
Because all you do is attacking me
That's the point of debating, genius!
Stop saying we're not supposed to care about Lang
If you think assaulting an old man, hitting on a married woman in a lustful way, and being disrespectful towards a champion, is morally upright, then be my guest, but the movie's angle certainly doesn't indicate that. Making Lang too sympathetic also lowers the stakes immensely
1
-
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
"Validity", when talking about statistics and quantitative research (including polls), refers to the data and results being relevant and accurate to what one intends to examine. A quick Google search could have given you that answer! You said you wanted to make a poll, and I'm asking how you intend to measure the validity of that result. You now wrote an essay worth of ranting without even knowing what you're reacting to or what a term even means.
If there's one thing for certain, then it's that you don't know what basic terms mean, and that you're mixing several different paradigms without letting your arguments be relevant to the particular paradigm you're trying to use. You're either having your statement's quality appeal to general consensus and using biases and internal irritations as your paradigm, or you're having your statement's quality appeal to personal preferences and using logical positivism, common sense, and cultural hegemony as your paradigms.
Bottom line: this entire discussion has been about you trying to mix water and oil without you even realizing it. It's hopeless to discuss with you because you don't even understand how aesthetic judgments or language games work (and now you're probably going to misunderstand what "language games" mean too, so at least Google it before you respond to it)
And yes, it is cherry-picking if you only focus on 1 aspect without even mentioning any other aspects or properly elaborating on how that 1 rotten apple supposedly spoils the bunch
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1